For whatever reason (it’s not really clear), Komen decides not to give any bucks to America’s largest abortion provider. They had sent money to Planned Parenthood before for breast cancer exams.

There was a vast, we are told, uprising decrying this “assault” on women’s health. Though one would reasonably guess that about half of the thousands and thousands abortions PP does each year mean the loss of the lives of women — clearly not healthy.

Now, Planned Parenthood is not the only organization that provides breast cancer screenings. So, would it matter, if the funding level stayed the same, whether the funds were just assigned to another group doing breast cancer screening? (That would be no.)

But then we learned that PP does not do mammograms, aka breast cancer screenings. They apparently do

“palpation of the breast, checking for detectable lumps.

“A woman’s best chances at beating her cancer are when the cancer is found through mammography before it is large enough to be palpated, or found through mammography in women whose breast density makes it difficult to detect by palpation. By funding PP, Komen funded the abortions that lead to increased risk of breast cancer, the distribution of oral contraceptives which are well known to cause breast cancer, and the lie that women were receiving mammograms,” according to Gerard Nadal.

Then it was said that donations to PP went way up because of Komen, as they reportedly did for Komen. NYC Mayor Bloomberg alone gave $250,000 to PP because of his concern for women, other than the ones aborted.

Yet, because of the bad publicity, the so-called assault on women, Komen reversed course and said that PP funding will continue.

So, nobody was really out any money, indeed they were probably getting more; PP doesn’t really directly provide mammograms; supporters of Planned Parenthood for women’s health ignore the evidence that links abortion and breast cancer, as they ignore the link between contraceptives, another PP favorite, and breast cancer; and we’re back where we started.

Just as the reality of abortion forces proponents, and those who claim opposition to abortion but say it must be an “option,” to use euphemisms and other mental gymnastics to be able to sleep, so must it be for the defenders of that great institution dedicated to women’s “health,” Planned Parenthood.

And the unborn? Well, we’ll lose another million plus this year, a total largely contributed to by Planned Parenthood, indirectly supported, because money is fungible, by Komen.

May God forgive us.

I have fond memories of Newt Gingrich. It was an amazing victory for conservatives when Republicans took the House. Many successes came with the help of his efforts. Perhaps some of them could be almost wholly attributable to him.

And, like most conservatives, he was attacked by the media as heartless. Remember the unflattering picture of him TIME used on its cover?

He’s brilliant. He has great ideas.

But his personal background, I think, makes it very difficult to support him for president of the United States. This is especially true since moral integrity was proclaimed such an important issue when Bill Clinton was running for president and after he became president.

Remember that there are the aspects of redemption, confession, and penance when acknowledging when we have fallen. And we all have. As Rick Perry said, who among us is unstained?

And one of the wonderful gifts of our shared Christian Catholic faith is that of the grace of forgiveness.

None of us can speak to what Gingrich personally, in his heart, has done to seek forgiveness. However, those in the public eye, such as politicians, have the additional burden in asking us to trust them that they prove to us that they deserve it. Do as I say, not as I do, doesn’t cut it.

And we saw and heard what he did in the last nationally televised debate. In his greatest public opportunity to date to exhibit genuine contrition, he did not answer the question regarding the TV interview his second wife gave about their marriage and his actions.

What his wife said in the interview was almost irrelevant. How he answered was and his response was to attack what he was asked and who asked it. This is someone who deeply regrets two extramarital affairs and two divorces?

Replace Gingrich with Clinton, make it a Democrat debate after a serious accusation of marital infidelity made against Clinton. Would Gingrich express the same shock had Clinton been asked about the accusation? He likely would have vigorously protested that the mainstream media was coddling Clinton had he not been asked.

Then there was this less-than-humble response:

On March 8, he told the Christian Broadcasting Network that his duty to his country contributed to the failure of his marriages. “There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.”

Granted, the same article linked above includes other things he has said that seem more indicative of someone who is genuinely repentant. And his daughters have offered support for their father – a very important fact.

So, it would be unchristian to reject Gingrich solely because of his past. But it would be the same to completely ignore it and elevate him to the presidency without concrete evidence of his remorse for repeatedly violating the sanctity of marriage.

Did you ever think about this constantly made, but wrong, charge: Republicans, Conservatives, hate poor people and love rich people?

As WFB might have asked, cui bono?

If most people are not rich (the 99%?), isn’t it safe to say most voters are not rich? Why, then, supposedly, court only a small block of voters (the 1%?) when in elections the person with the most votes wins?

During the last campaign, this blog made note of the sadly monotonous trend: politicians will claim the prolife flag during the campaign but, after getting into office, they will eventually let the issue of abortion recede, until the next campaign.

This abandonment of the prolife imperative is reluctantly done by some as their genuine efforts go nowhere.

For others, it’s all part of the plan. They want the votes they can get for being prolife. But they never really intend to go to the mat, or even dress for competition, once in the “hallowed halls” of government.

But this election cycle in Ohio, it looks like some are determined to make a difference.

Soon after the Republicans gained control of both houses and the governor’s office, efforts to fight abortion were predicted. They have come to fruition. The House recently passed three abortion-related bills.

One of the bills was so substantial that Ohio Right to Life voiced its reservation. What that says about ORTL or the bill remains something to ponder.

It is this bill that has been called the most stringent in the nation. It will instantly be ruled unconstitutional, critics claim, so why bother?

Yes, why bother to challenge the status quo? No great advances in life – no pun intended — have ever been made in this manner, right?

This bill takes the startling position that a baby should be protected from abortion when a heartbeat can be detected. Imagine that. The same protection given all of us, that no one is allowed to stop our hearts from beating, will be extended to the unborn.

The reaction of Janet Folger Porter, who used to work for ORTL, to the bill’s passing in the House summed up how much the bill matters in the long slog since Roe:

“For every battle-weary pro-lifer who didn’t see how children were going to be protected in our lifetime, come see what God is doing in Ohio.”

Contrast that with the unbelievable – in both its vacuity and immaturity – comment of a state representative who opposed protecting young humans whose beating hearts can be heard:

“Look around, women. You are surrounded by men making decisions about your future … barefoot and pregnant, that’s where they want you, raising the kids while we are making a living.”

Really? This is what’s offered as a serious argument in such a critical debate? Of course, all one is left with when opposing such an eminently proper act is appeal to absurdity.

Now we will see if the bill moves beyond the House.

We will learn if the House vote was a game-changer or an exercise in futility.

We will find out if yet again hopes raised of Roe’s defeat collapse with the weight of legislators too fearful or too selfish to do the right thing.

The future of Al Qaeda and its likely leader in the Christian Science Monitor is a good read. But there are two aspects of it that are of particular interest.

President Bush was vilified by liberals — and many conservatives — for his entry into Iraq, and remaining until the job was done. The most often raised criticism is that there were no weapons of mass destruction there.

While I still wonder what role Syria played in Iraq’s final days under the butcher of Baghdad, just about every national intelligence service, along with the same nations’ leaders, believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, despite the unending repetition of the baseless claim that Bush lied, WMD was not the sole reason we went to Iraq. In fact, there were many reasons.

One was to help establish another democracy in the Middle East, in addition to our ally Israel. (And what influence has this advance of democracy played in the changes we have seen in Egypt and other countries now? More than Bush’s critics would ever dare to concede.)

Another was that we wanted to fight the terrorists over there, not here. And here is where the CSM article is particularly insightful, if not necessarily designed to address this matter:

In bin Laden’s eyes, 9/11 was the sort of moment that would inspire millions of Muslims and cause young men to flock to his cause.

And indeed, thousands of fighters converged on Iraq. Al Qaeda was developing a new core of radicalized fighters one country away from Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam. Bin Laden was convinced that the US would be defeated there and that Muslims worldwide would reject secular politics.

As it turned out, it became the beginning of the source of destruction of bin Laden and his Al Qaeda.

The other especially interesting aspect of the article was its highlighting of Muslims killing Muslims.

Here:

But Al Qaeda’s atrocities in Iraq, where it killed thousands of civilians and stoked the Shiite-Sunni civil war in 2006-07, undercut the image of bin Laden’s group. Rather than millions in Egypt or Saudi Arabia being inspired, they were sickened by Muslims killing Muslims.

And here:

Indeed, Zawahiri has set his sights not only on the West. He has urged takfir, under which Muslims with whom one doesn’t agree are declared to be apostates, and thus fair targets for the jihad.

These are compelling because they recall something I read years ago about signs during World War II that Nazi Germany was heading toward its demise. The Nazis began to turn the guns on themselves as Hitler saw, or thought he saw, more and more traitors. When they begin to kill themselves, the writer noted, it is a sign of decline and, eventually, defeat.

Times are tough. Just ask the fleeing Democratic senators who have left Wisconsin and Indiana instead of voting on labor-related laws. Nothing like protesting changes in labor laws by refusing to do your job. Do as I say, not as I do, lead by example, and so on are lost on these guys and gals.

Oh, the challenges they must be facing as they remain in hiding. Could it be going something like this?

“Rock, paper, scissors. Go!”

“One. Two. Three.”

“Again!”

“OK. Bill, you’re first in the breakfast line today. What’s that, like three times? You rock!”

“Bacon, here I come. And, just like all those benefits the GOP wants to cut from our working brothers and sisters, it’s free. At least to us!”

“Yes, Virginia, there is a free lunch. Well, at least breakfast. High five.”

“And think of all the travel reimbursements we’ll be getting – for doing nothing. Oops, don’t quote that. I mean, while we take the brave and bold stand of hiding out in hotels in another state in support of the working man!”

“Dude, I think I’d leave out the ‘hiding out in hotels’ part. Kinda clouds our narrative, ya know.”

“Good point.”

“I cannot believe they are out of hash browns again. I will have to inform this ‘fine’ establishment that we are Democratic senators on the lam and we expect a higher level of service. After all, we’re paying for this with tax dollars and we expect a high ‘return on our investment.’ ”

“Yeah, get that ‘ROI’ in there.”

“When we move tonight after midnight, we may not select another location under this chain’s management!”

“Here, here.”

“I second that.”

“All in favor?”

“Wait, we don’t have a quorum.”

“Ha, good one. You are on fire this a.m.”

“The next hotel better have a Jacuzzi. I’ve done more moving around in the last week than I’ve done in all those years at the statehouse. My muscles are sore.”

“Yeah, and a spa. I’m very tense from all this protesting. It’s time for some ‘me time.’ ”

“OK. Now for some business. It’s time we got serious and made a decision. The last few days really have been a struggle for everyone, am I right?”

“Yeah, you’re right. Let’s get down to business. We need to take action.”

“Thank you. Now, what’s it going to be for the 10 a.m. time slot: ‘Jerry Springer’ or ‘Judge Judy’?”

“Rock, paper, scissors. Go.”

Let’s look at it this way, from a public relations view.

As Ohio’s future governor was campaigning about the need to balance a budget that was expected to have a multi-billion dollar hole, would also planning to cost the state money protecting the new governor’s family home make sense?

Would choosing not to live in the already paid-for governor’s mansion and spending tax money for security at his home make sense if initially no information would be given about the cost of that extra security?

If as governor one was planning on supporting legislation that would make substantial changes to public-employee collective bargaining, would it have made sense to simultaneously plan on hiring some staff members at substantially higher salaries than before?

Would it also have made sense to plan on reducing the pay of some lower-level staff with the idea of being able to say that, overall, the total staff salary budget would not exceed that of the previous governor?

In a state where about 12 percent of the population is black, would it have been a good idea as the new governor to plan on not naming “a single nonwhite person in [the] first 22 cabinet appointments”?

This is not to say these decisions could not have reasonable, plausible, innocent explanations. Nor is it to say that these moves were indeed planned. But when looked at from the perspective of planning to do them, it’s easy to see how bad PR would follow.

Perhaps if we looked at more of our decisions from this standpoint, we might make better choices.

And if there is any doubt about the damage this has caused Kasich’s administration, a cursory look at letters to the editor and a “Kasich” search on Twitter can verify that it has been harmful.

I have to admit the last few weeks have been a bit tough. Some job opportunities seemed to have closed as fast as they opened. I won’t belabor it; I’ve talked about my job-search journey a few times here.

But today offered quite a nice surprise. When I went to get the mail, a package was waiting at my door. I didn’t think it was for me since I hadn’t ordered anything. The envelope was partially open and I could see it was a book. Now, I order books but was sure I hadn’t done so this time.

But there was my name on the label.

Upon opening it, I broke into smiles. It was a copy of Known and Unknown, A Memoir, by Donald Rumsfeld.

Just over a year ago, after I read who would publish the former Defense secretary’s upcoming book, I contacted the publisher. I humbly requested a copy prior to publication for review on this blog (which I began after I was laid off from my journalism job, see above).

My initial contact was met positively, but I was asked to get in touch with the publisher again when it was closer to the expected release date. When I did so, it sounded less promising. I was told there would not be any pre-publication copies given to the press.

But they still sent me a copy to arrive on publication day! A big Thank You to those at Sentinel/Penguin Group who still kept me in mind.

I have a lot of admiration for Donald Rumsfeld. He certainly became a lightning rod as Defense secretary. But I always saw him as a dedicated patriot who made the best interests of his country top priority.

Heck, I was even quoting him from time to time in some editorials I wrote in my previous job. The quotes were from some of the speeches he gave on the anniversary of 9/11. Whatever your feelings about Rumsfeld, you cannot help but be moved when he talks about the sacrifices our men and women in uniform, and their families, have made, and continue to make, for America.

Now, I’ve got some reading to do! This is a big book.

Headlines can make a difference in readership/clicks. However, looking at some of the headlines in the blogosphere, it seems some are just a bit over the top in trying to drive traffic.

Hence, a few (somewhat) exaggerated examples:

• Why your blog makes people puke

• Like your job? Too bad, it’s obsolete

• Why your blog is less popular than Hosni Mubarak

• These are the only three things that matter in (fill in the industry/occupation)

• Why your blog gets fewer visitors than the sun

• If you do only one thing today, make sure it’s …

• Why your blog sucks. No, really, it does

• Forget everything you ever knew about transplant surgery (or whatever other industry/occupation)

• What? You’re still blogging?

What headlines do you think are a little too full of hype?

Word is Fox Sports has rejected this ad for the big game. Could the ad be less proselytizing?