A reporter from the Daily Iowan recently wrote Dr. Hurd the following: "I attended [Newt] Gingrich's event today and he talked about his plan to promote more research in brain science. He said that not only will advances in this area of science help millions affected by diseases, such as dementia, but also reduce a significant amount of cost. At one point he said that by 2050 this cost will amount to 1 and 1/2 federal deficits. One person in the crowd argued that this area was "small potatoes" and the country should focus on other areas which cause more problems, like obesity. From a health professional's standpoint, does focusing on advancement in brain science impact a lot and should we be focusing energy in other areas?"

Where I live, in a tiny town on the Atlantic coast of tiny Delaware, I'm surrounded by the most liberal of Democrats. It's like a mini-San Francisco of the east here. This gives me some good insight into what liberals are thinking these days. Here's what I hear the most: "I am very disappointed by Obama. I know things aren't good. But what does the Republican side have to offer? I could live with Mitt Romney, though."

Politicians like Mitt Romney and Barack Obama insist that there should be middle class tax cuts. Obama goes further and insists that these tax cuts be paid for by "the rich" (those making over $250,000 a year, his definition).

Gingrich or Romney? Which is better, from a pro-freedom, limited government and individual rights point-of-view? The question relies upon a false premise. The false premise is that either one of these men even claims to be in favor of limited government as provided for in the original American Constitution. It's not a matter of figuring out "how good he will be" or "if he really means it" -- because meaning something implies that you think it in the first place. To be fair, neither of these men ever claimed to be an advocate of strictly limited government.