d women voters tend to prefer Democrats.Karlyn Bowman, a wise demographer and student of American politics, offered the Kirkpatrick Society some insights into why women are not better represented in politics. Surveys of potential candidates have shown that women believe the system is biased against them,cheap toms on sale online. They are also more risk-averse than men, and more repelled by negative campaigning. In 2001 and in a follow-up study ten years later, women reported that they were more concerned about the potential loss of privacy and family time than men were. Doesn’t sound like the patriarchy at work, does it?Bowman cited another study that examined this apparently widespread belief that women have it worse in politics than do men. Jody Newman assembled a huge database on candidates for state legislatures, governorships, and House and Senate seats. She concluded that at every level, women are just as likely as men to be victorious,toms for men.There’s a footnote, though. Democratic women candidates do better than Republican women at attracting the votes of women. Among 24 Senate and gubernatorial races in the 1980s that featured a woman, only one Republican woman received a larger share of the women’s vote than her opponent. Since 2000, in only four races did Republican women get more female than male support (and two of those were for Maine moderate Olympia Snowe).Still, Bowman reminds us that 2012 ought not to become calcified as the “free contraceptives” year. She’s found no evidence that birth control was a big factor in the race. Nor was it a victory for the “Julia” narrative — the Obama-campaign cartoon that depicted a prototypical American woman being cared for cradle to grave by the state. Mitt Romney won white women by 56 to 42 percent. He won 53 percent of married women. It was the lopsided majorities of black (96 percent), Asian (66 percent), and Hispanic (87 percent) women who gave the election to Obama.I believe that women — and the country — would be far better off if all Americans married before having children and stayed married whenever possible, and if at least one parent held down a job. Then again, I’m a bad woman.— Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2013 Creators Syndicate, Inc.editor’s note: This article has been amended since its initial publication.[标签:标题]
Vice President Joe Biden speaks at a gun violence task force meeting,toms with lace for men, January 10, 2013. ‘As the president said, if your actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking,” Vice President Joe Biden declared on Wednesday as he previewed what his commission on gun violence might actually do.“There are executive orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”Biden insisted that it is a moral imperative for the White House to do something: “It’s critically important that we act.” Advertisement Most of the attention, understandably, is on Biden’s suggestion that the president will consider using executive orders to do things he couldn’t possibly accomplish legislatively. The imperial presidency is always troubling, but when it rubs up against the Bill of Rights it is especially so.But what I find to be arguably the most disturbing — and definitely the most annoying — part of Biden’s remarks is this nonsense about if it saves only one life, the White House’s actions would be worth it.Maybe it’s because I wrote a whole book on the way phrases like “if it saves only one life, it’s worth it” distort our politics, but whenever I hear such things the hairs on the back of my neck go up.The notion that any government action is justified if it saves even a single life is malarkey, to borrow one of Mr. Biden’s favorite terms. Worse than that, it’s dangerous malarkey.Let’s start with the malarkey part. The federal government could ban cars, fatty foods, ladders, plastic bucketRelated articles:

• http://www.jsgygs.gov.cn/index.asp
• http://bbs.taosx.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1541972
• http://www.zhgen.com/bbs/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=947576&extra=