I’m sorry if you are upset about being called out, but that does not obligate me, or our readers, to attend your “pity party”.  If you expect to write an opinion column and not be disagreed with, then you need to find another outlet for your creative endeavors.

Your stock in trade is “making silk purses out of sow’s ears”.  When pursuing that endeavor, more often than not, what you end up with is a very ugly purse and a badly mutilated sow.

However, just for an exercise, let’s examine two statements that I cut and pasted directly from your column in last Friday’s paper (October 26^th.)

The first one is “Ryan’s Catholicism forbids the use of birth control, a dogma he thinks should apply to every American.” The first phrase is correct, but the second is an assumption, not in evidence.  But, even were it so, Ryan, or even Romney, when they are elected, will not have the ability to make it a reality. So, not only is the second part questionable, or untrue, but it is also “saber rattling.”

The second is more revealing in its subtle untruth, and could even be construed to mean that you are against Freedom of Religion, or that you do not believe anyone can have moral objections.  You stated “They both back the Blunt amendment that would restrict a woman’s access to birth control if the employer providing her health insurance objects on “moral” grounds.”  The first 6 words are true.  The remainder is not. The only thing that would be restricted is their ability to get contraceptives through their health care plan. Their access to them would not be changed. Everyone has access equally. It is only a question of who pays.

As a matter of record, the Blunt amendment was defeated in the Senate back in March, which makes bringing it up now another instance of “saber rattling”. The vote on that amendment was incredibly close, so Romney and Ryan were hardly renegades for backing it.

Your use of quotation marks around the word “moral” would make one wonder if you think that morals do not exist, or if you think that moral, or religious objection is not sufficient reason for exemption.  When pondering that, I would remind you that, even in time of war, we exempt certain individuals from bearing arms due to moral objections.  Certainly that is a much more critical issue than who pays for a woman’s birth control pills.

Kevin, I have neither the time, nor the inclination to explore all such statements you have made. If you are not already fully aware of them and the fallacies therein, check with our readers. They have already pointed out most of them.

For the record, I have said what I intend to say on this topic.  If you choose to continue the issue, you will do so alone.

I sincerely bear you no ill will and wish you a great day today and a better day tomorrow.