Ms. Maisel,

To be honest, if I had read this previously to talking to you on twitter my response would have been a bit different, but nevertheless I cannot not comment.

The most blatant problem I have with the article is this quote.

(perhaps the 98 percent of Catholics who use contraception)

Wherein this tag is mentioned there.

They were referring to an April 2011 report from the organization that describes its mission as to “advance sexual and reproductive health and rights.”

This is the problem with any polling, scientific study without concrete proof, or journalist (not commentator or blogger, but journalist) endeavor. To write a report or study about anything and have it mean anything, to me, means you must not have a dog in the fight. These quotes taken together mean I have no way to take that report seriously. Its a statistical improbability that extrapolated that the report is true, as 2% is far too small a number in that regard. It’s also misleading, as any practicing catholic goes through stretches where they fall short of their own ideals.

Now does this mean I am defending the attack on contraception? Hardly, since my wife takes it and I am a Christian that sees no Biblical reasoning besides a slippery slope argument against birth control in scripture. However, does this worldview that does not include that belief say that it is ok for government to mandate a religious organization that in no way hides its religion from view can be compelled to provide an insurance that covers contraception? Absolutely not.

The problem with the narrative is that we have already conceded so much to your side in area’s such as these. We shouldn’t have as a movement sat aside when these types of things were forced on any person. But its really beside the point. If I as a Christian must lay down my faith at the foot of the government to comply with a law that has no constitutional basis, nor does it have any precedent then I am not free to be a Christian. You are coercing my action with the guise of treating me (the owner of that business) as a business instead of an individual.

The problem that we have in this country is that we are so far removed from ever using the constitution as the document to guide our federal policy, that rightly in order to call some of these actions (although not this one in particular as it has no precedent) unconstitutional, we must also call a good portion of existing law unconstitutional as well. Republicans in general are scared to death of doing that and rightly so. I have no loyalty to the republican party, in spite of the fact that I consider myself a republican, because the party has left me. It left me long before I was even born.

To me, using this study in your article does resemble adversarial journalism. Why? Because you are throwing down a gauntlet by generalizing using a flawed source. You may not see it as flawed or adversarial, but the point remains that on my side with my vision and thought process it is adversarial.

“My point is, if another country does to us what we do others, we’re not going to like it very much. So I would say that maybe we ought to consider a golden rule in — in foreign policy. ”

Now with this particular concern I will explain a little bit more what was behind the boos. While you were in some cases I’m sure right, because not all people are political junkies like you or I. This was not the first time Ron Paul had said something to this effect. You have to take this in context with how a conservative/republican views this whole situation.

To us, Pakistan was not just some innocent party that was caught unaware that Osama Bin Laden was where he was. Its more nuanced then it can really be put down. I cannot wrap my head around him being where he was so near bases and other military and government installations without it being known. See, Pakistan has an unenviable situation. The government is slightly pro-US in general. Mainly because they don’t want to bite the hands that feeds it so much. However, unlike in Iran where it is the opposite the average citizen in Pakistan hates the U.S. So for them to green light an attack on Osama Bin Laden could potentially have hazardous and incite potential uprisings or coos. Now, as I’m not in government I cannot say exactly how it went down, but it is conceivable that we did ask Pakistan about it and they did green light it. They then denied having done so with our blessing to quell the threat of rebellion. Or, if I’m right in my original thought they knew Bin Laden was there for years, and because we found that out we did not seek their support or consent because it was thought they would leak the incoming attack on Bin Laden to his contacts that inevitably do recon and have spies. You have to assume these things in this type of situation.

So, what a conservative hears him saying is “we must consult a nation even if they are thought/known to be harboring a terrorist even as big as Bin Laden before attempting to take him out”. This I view as a very dangerous position. It is because of the nuanced situation presented here that I claim that Ron Pauls overall foreign policy is dangerous among other things.

The other thing that I would like to say is that there is no TV news station that is actually conservative by my own, and many others definition. We see in Europe more defined example of this, but both parties for the past century have contributed to the rise in power of the federal government at the expense of what I view as freedom and state’s mandated role in the constitution. So to have one person on the right, and one on the left is disingenuous often times as our country has moved so far left in the past century that somehow big government can be conservative. The fact that George W. Bush can be considered by anyone as fiscally conservative is my case and point. The only slightly conservative thing he really had fiscally is on tax policy in reducing rates, but even there it was not because he made the tax system more progressive and not less so.

I agree on the overall tone, and as I said on twitter I will not fight unless provoked personally. One of the biggest problems on tone is that a whole segment of society right now feels like they are the whipping post for not just progressives and liberals, but those more moderate inside of their own party. George Washington warned us about having just two entrenched political parties, and that was the founders largest mistake outside of not dealing with slavery more decisively with the constitutions enforcement. The two party system is precisely why the adversary environment will continue to exist with no real end in sight. Because its not just between the two parties its also inside of both parties. There are no less then six different parties in this country if you really look at true ideology. Yet, they are able to obfuscate their views inside of a big tent crowded full of people. This also allows for the demonization of both parties as well. Because we have two large tent parties and it is seen as simply conservative vs liberal each side can point at certain shameful elements of the other party as a means to discredit it.