Google Earthlings

It never occurred to me that Google Earth could alter the course of a young man’s life.

Then again, it also never occurred to me that Twitter could significantly assist a national uprising in Iran.  So what do I know?

In one of the most enchanting, heartwarming pieces of reporting I have read in many a moon, titled, “A Home at the End of Google Earth,” David Kushner recounts in the November 2012 issue of Vanity Fair the true story of an Indian-born man who, having been raised by adoptive parents in Australia, endeavors to find his birth parents and childhood home using only his wits and Google Earth.

The man’s name is Saroo.  He is 30 years old.  Twenty-five years prior, he became permanently separated from his family in a bustling train station somewhere in India.  The train took off, Saroo fell asleep, and when he woke up, he had no idea where he was or how to get home.  He was illiterate; everything he knew about his home was visual.

Get where the story is headed?  You are correct:  Following his natural curiosity all these years later, Saroo reconstructs a few key locales that have stuck in his memory and takes to Google’s repository of satellite imagery to “follow the breadcrumbs” (as he puts it) back to his place of origin.  I wouldn’t dream of revealing the ending to this saga; suffice it to say it would be a mistake to walk out of the theater before it’s over.

What makes Saroo’s tale so charming is its timelessness—the search for one’s home and identity has never gone out of style—yet simultaneously it is very much a comment on modern technology, which, in the wrong hands, can be a profoundly unsexy avenue for a great, old-fashioned yarn.

But this story ennobles the technology, just as the pangs of revolution in Iran in 2009 ennobled Twitter in ways that even Jack Dorsey, the website’s creator, could not possibly have anticipated.  Bill Maher said at the time, “Twitter didn’t save Iran.  Iran saved Twitter.”  Indeed it did.  But is this not a distinction without a difference?  Isn’t all newfangled gadgetry just the newest, shiniest means to the same old ends?

Everyone my age remembers the Hey Arnold! Christmas episode, which originally aired in 1996, whose central drama involves its titular character tracking down the long-lost daughter of a friend through a federal office worker, who cautions that such a search “could take hours—maybe even days!”  I am reminded, also, of the moment in Almost Famous when the Rolling Stone editor marvels at the efficiency of a state-of-the-art transcription machine, raving, “It only takes 18 minutes a page!”

Technology may change, but we humans pretty much stay the same.

Perhaps for that reason, moments like these force one to reflect upon the profound role that chance plays in the positioning of each of us in time and space.  And how for all the dominion we have over our machines, our machines exert an equal force of influence over us.

Had Saroo been born a century (or a decade) earlier, he would not have had Google’s amazing toy with which to retrace his existence from the comfort of his own laptop.  The effort to retrace his steps would involve an exorbitant amount of actual legwork, and most probably would never have gotten underway.

Christopher Hitchens, in writing his 2005 biography of Thomas Jefferson, reflected with sadness and frustration that, for all of Jefferson’s brilliance and curiosity about the natural world, he nonetheless operated in a “pre-Darwinian time,” in which certain assumptions we now take for granted were not yet known or even hypothesized.

Indeed, ponder these things long enough and the entirety of world history seems up for grabs.  Taking all the human knowledge accumulated in the last two centuries, imagine what a figure like Jefferson could do were he to reappear today.

And what delights await our own descendents two centuries hence?  Considering how the way of the world has evolved within our lifetimes thus far, the possibilities for the future are positively awe-inspiring.

We are stardust, as an old rock ‘n’ roller once wrote, and we exist in a web of interdependence with the rest of the universe in ways we do not always appreciate.  But it is worth reflecting upon from time to time, if only to keep us grounded and humble.

The world is a marvelous place, and we didn’t build all of it ourselves.

Advertisements

Gaffes We Can Believe In

I wish there were more people in public life like Richard Mourdock.

In case you missed it, Mourdock is the Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Indiana, having defeated six-term incumbent Richard Lugar in the GOP primary in May.  In a recent debate against Democrat Joe Donnelly, Mourdock responded to a question about his abortion views by stating, “Life is a gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

To the surprise of no one, Mourdock’s comments engendered something of a brouhaha, with folks on both the red team and the blue team behaving more or less as you would expect.  Democrats strung together attack ads in the hope of conflating Mourdock with Mitt Romney, while Republicans distanced themselves from Mourdock’s comments, if not Mourdock himself.

In some ways, of course, this latest abortion-related electoral kerfuffle mirrors the one generated in August by Todd Akin, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Missouri, who suggested (erroneously) that it is biologically impossible for a woman to become pregnant from being raped.

What interests me is that in both cases, there has been real confusion about what, exactly, Republicans were distancing themselves from.

Allow me to quote an excerpt from the 2012 Republican Party Platform:  “[W]e assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.”

This is not an equivocating policy p0sition.  It states boldly and clearly the official GOP stance on abortion, which is that the practice ought to be prohibited in all cases.  Period, full stop.

This being the case, it is curious how every time an actual Republican affirms this view in public, he is roundly filleted not just by his adversaries, but his fellow travelers as well.

The journalist Michael Kinsley famously defined a “gaffe” in politics as “when a politician tells the truth—some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.”

If Mourdock’s abortion view does not fit this definition perfectly—we might argue whether there is anything “obvious” about it—it is very much in the spirit of the sentiment that a politician is never made more vulnerable than in saying what he truly believes in plain, unambiguous language.  For this—if only for this—Mourdock is to be commended.

However, we are not done with him, as we have still to wrestle with the substance and implications of those very words.

In her most recent New York Times column, Gail Collins rightly observes, “If you believe life begins at conception, then that’s a life, and you should try to convince women not to terminate any pregnancy, no matter what the cause.  Our difference of opinion is over whether you can impose your beliefs with the threat of cops and penitentiaries.”

On this point, I need only add that Mourdock has done his potential constituents a service by making it clear that, in electing him, they would be installing as their representative a person who very much would like to impose his beliefs on life and death upon everyone else.  What could be fairer than that?

It is every other Republican—those who supposedly differ with Mourdock on this matter—who have the explaining to do.  After all, if one is to bestow “personhood” on a fetus from the moment of conception, it becomes very difficult to then issue exceptions.  By not doing so, Mourdock’s crime was political, not logical.

What I have not addressed is whether his views are moral.  There has been much talk that they, along with the Republican Party’s abortion stance in general, are “extreme.”  I hazard to say that I will leave such judgments in the safe keeping of the good people of Indiana.

The point is that voters need to know what they’re voting for.  Nancy Pelosi has been going around the country reminding everyone that issues, not just individuals, are on the ballot this year.  (I’m not aware of an election in which this was not the case, but the point is taken.)  George W. Bush’s entire case for re-election in 2004 rested on his (largely true) appeal, “You know what I believe and where I stand.”

With these two considerations in mind, I humbly request that this year’s candidates meet the voters halfway, following Richard Mourdock’s lead by stating, in no uncertain terms, who they are and what they think.

My advice to these pols:  Gaffe early and often.

Remembering the Ladies

There is nothing a man more enjoys hearing than the assertion that women are better than men at everything.

This obvious fact having been made not nearly enough, we heard it again at the conclusion of this year’s series of presidential debates, two of which (for the first time) were moderated by women.

Following Jim Lehrer’s passive, lackluster refereeing of the first meeting between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, Martha Raddatz received high marks for her efforts in the running mate rumble between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan the following week.  She and Candy Crowley, maestro of the second Obama-Romney face-off, seemed to make it clear:  Women moderate debates better than man.

In these waning days of the 2012 presidential campaign, we might reflect that a marked characteristic of this year’s electoral festivities has been the unprecedented ubiquity of so-called “women’s issues” in the national conversation.  Women have voted since 1920—and in greater proportions than men in every presidential election since 1980—but somehow this was the year that many politicians came to appreciate the benefits of broaching subjects, previously ignored, that directly affect this particular half of the population.

Women, for their part, appreciate nothing so much as having their most intimate concerns discussed by a panel of men.  We witnessed such a spectacle in February, when the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee conducted a hearing about whether contraception should be covered by health insurance, for which not a single woman was called to testify.

A pertinent question we might ask, then:  How much does it actually matter whether the people involved in these discussions are, in fact, women?  Is the existence of female leaders axiomatically good for women?

My short answer I will phrase in the form of a question:  Would women, as a group, be better off under a President Sarah Palin than under President Obama?

As you ponder that little riddle, allow me to issue a couple of useful reminders.

First, women are individuals who do not agree with each other about most issues, including abortion and contraception.  Very few matters divide perfectly, or even mostly, along gender lines.  We would do well not to act as if they do.

On the abortion question, there is a profoundly annoying school of thought roughly founded on the old Florynce Kennedy line, “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament”—as if the entire anti-abortion argument were reducible to male chauvinism.

On the other hand, the Kennedy quip does offer insight into the role of empathy in this war of the sexes in which we are apparently engaged.

The entirety of this perceived gender divide, after all, is the assumption that men neglect women’s concerns because they are not men’s concerns.  Were men to have less of a policy stranglehold in the halls of power, the argument goes, this would not happen so often.

On this point, I offer a second useful reminder:  Men are individuals who do not agree with each other about most issues, including abortion and contraception.

As we theorize whether male pregnancy would turn abortion into a sacrament, we might recall that female pregnancy did not prevent an all-male Supreme Court from establishing abortion as a constitutional right, in Roe v. Wade.  This, and the existence of “pro-life” women, would seem to make the whole “men are the problem” argument the slightest bit untenable.

The real problem is not a deficit of women, but rather a deficit of empathy—an epidemic of not listening to each other, which has poisoned all levels of government for the better part of the last two centuries.

By way of analogy, consider the gay rights movement.

In the last decade, we have seen, among other things, the repeal by Congress of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the legalization of same-sex marriage in six states and the District of Columbia through a combination of legislative and judicial acts.

In none of these instances did the ruling party include a statistically significant number of homosexuals.  Indeed, the tally of openly gay U.S. congresspeople can be counted on the fingers on one hand.

The fact is that being gay is not required to understand gay issues, and being a woman is not required to understand women’s issues.  The key is for those with a vested interest in the great causes of the day to be effective lobbyists and agitators for them, winning the attention and understanding of those with the power to actually effect change.

Heed the words from a famous old story:  “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view….until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.”

Losing It All

George McGovern died this past Sunday.  A three-term U.S. senator (and two-term congressman before that), McGovern will forever be known by history as the man who lost the 1972 presidential race to Richard Nixon by a score of 49 states to one.

Because history is “written by the victors”—as Winston Churchill had it—we seldom spend much time on the losers.  In the case of presidential elections, we should.

The American presidency has played host to all manner of pop psychobabble over the eons, by professionals and amateurs alike.  While such flights of conjecture can be overdone, the notion of holding the nation’s highest officeholder under a psychological microscope is nonetheless justified by the nature of the office itself, described regularly (and fairly accurately) as the most difficult job on planet Earth.

Almost by definition, then, the presidency attracts individuals with boundless self-confidence and the rawest of nerve—people who are what David Brooks has termed, “emotional freaks.”  These folks do nothing less than put their entire beings on display in front of the American public, and on Election Day are judged as to whether they pass muster.

Most of us normal, emotionally balanced citizens can only imagine the dermatological thickness the whole endeavor of running for high office demands, as well as the inherent neediness of its participants—that is, the need to be liked and approved of, not merely by one’s parents, friends and peers, but by darn near everyone.

My question today is simply this:  How does one cope with being rejected by a majority of one’s own country?

The late Senator McGovern’s one-state wonder of a campaign defeat in 1972 has been matched only once in the history of contested presidential elections.  Walter Mondale, challenging President Ronald Reagan in 1984, also accomplished this dubious feat, losing every state except his own, Minnesota.  (McGovern won Massachusetts; his home state of South Dakota swung to his opponent.)

We are offered a brief insight into the aftereffects of such humiliation in an anecdote involving both of these men.  As Mondale recalled to Politico just this week, “I remember when, after I lost my race for president, I went to see George.  I said, ‘Tell me how long it takes to get over a defeat of this kind.’  He said, ‘I’ll call you when it happens.’”

In fact, McGovern disclosed as early as May 1973 that he and his wife “almost moved to England after the election.”  Considering McGovern remained a sitting U.S. senator (re-elected the following year, no less), we can hardly take these as the words of a man quick to make peace with the American electorate.

If losing the presidential race in a veritable rout is a singular trauma—something the rest of us cannot fully fathom—there is a corollary fate that offers its own psychological fascination:  Losing the presidential race by a hair.

With the 2012 election but a fortnight from today, we are faced with the possibility—however remote—of a popular/electoral vote split, whereby the candidate preferred by a greater number of citizens is proclaimed the loser.  This has happened four times, most recently in 2000, when Al Gore garnered more than 500,000 more votes than George W. Bush.  As the remaining three electoral splits occurred in the 19th century, Gore is the only person now alive who knows how this feels.

And how is that?  In what mind is one put by the knowledge that a plurality of the American public affirmed that you should be the most powerful man on Earth, and then to be denied the opportunity by a 200-year-old system that half the country doesn’t understand?  As Kevin Costner said in Field of Dreams, “It would kill some men to get so close to their dream and not touch it.  They’d consider it a tragedy.”

In the long run, most losing candidates seem to adopt the old equation, “Tragedy plus time equals comedy,” using self-deprecating witticisms to make light of their electoral failures as best they know how.  Gore opened his climate talks by deadpanning, “I am Al Gore, and I used to be the next president of the United States.”  McGovern would regale a 1973 audience at a Gridiron event, “For many years, I wanted to run for the presidency in the worst possible way—and last year I sure did.”

Nobody likes a sore loser, and self-pity is rarely an attractive quality, no matter how understandable it might be.  In two weeks, we will add a new name to the distinguished list of presidential also-rans.  In defeat, this man, be it Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, may well reveal the true measure of his character.

Let It Bleed

I am not a good person.  I do not mean people well.  I perform acts of altruism with extreme infrequency, shunning them whenever I can.  What has the world ever done for me, anyway?

Partly as a way to counteract all of this—and after a lifetime of avoiding it—I recently wandered onto the website for the American Red Cross and registered for a local blood drive.  At the appointed time, I strutted into the library where the event was being held and donated a pint of my precious bodily fluids, to be used however the proud organization sees fit.  Finally, a way to put my wretched carcass to good use before it expires.

What strikes one upon giving blood for the first time is the extreme ease and painlessness of the whole ordeal.  I recall myself, as a teen, once saying something to the effect of, “For me, the pain of the needle is not worth helping somebody else.”  It is possibly the stupidest thing I have ever said.

First, and most obviously, it is a stupid comment for its abject selfishness and narcissism; years later, I shake my head in disbelief that I could allow myself to utter such piffle in public.

What is more, the actual experience of giving blood disproves the whole premise.  In point of fact, the donation process itself is little more than a slightly longer version of a routine blood test, which, for the overwhelming majority of us, is the most stress-free chore in the world:  A fleeting burst of pain as the needle penetrates the skin, followed by several moments of extreme tedium as we allow the wonders of science to do their work.

Further still, Red Cross workers ensure your maximum personal comfort at every step of the way.  The background check interview is now self-administered on a computer, allowing you to record the number of times you have exchanged sexual favors for cash in dignified silence.  The needle is threaded as you lie flat on your back, inviting the very real possibility of nodding off before it’s over.  And of course, everything ends at the complimentary snack bar, featuring all the free water and crackers you care to consume.

What I learned—as many millions of my peers have doubtless known for years—is that giving blood is an absolute good.  Performed in the correct way, with all the necessary precautions, it is an act with near-unlimited benefits and practically no drawbacks.

I confess that I merely skimmed the section of the donor handbook regarding what, specifically, might happen to my blood once it left my arm.  I knew the possibilities were legion, and could wager, with reasonable certitude, that washing down Nosferatu’s steak was not one of them.  Assuming my sample proved viable, something good would come of it.  That’s all I needed to know.

What finally convinced me to go through with it—surely you must wonder—was Christopher Hitchens, a fellow atheist who, in promoting his book God is Not Great, cited giving blood as an example of an inherently good deed that requires no religious inducement, and can be done just as well by a nonbeliever as by a believer.  On this, I dare say he was right.

I say it is an absolute good—not merely a nice thing to do—because, as Hitchens reminds us, our bodies can recover that lost pint with all deliberate speed.  There is nothing sacrificial to the act—nothing we give up (other than our time) that we don’t immediately regain.

Accordingly, there is nothing brave or exceptional to it—no measurable risk to assume—and thus no excuse for any qualified potential donor not to seize the opportunity when it arises, which it does with fantastic regularity in all corners of the United States, in every big city and every small town.

More beauteous still, it can be done for any reason.  In its design, it appeals both to our sense of altruism as well as our selfishness.  As with many charities, we do not know (in most cases) precisely who might benefit from our donation, lending an air of abstraction to an exercise that, at the same time, will have a very direct and real effect on a fellow human being.

Taking all of these considerations together, then, the point is not that one should give blood out of the goodness of one’s heart.  It is, rather, that one should hide one’s head in shame for declining to do so.

Third Party Plight

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney had their second debate this past Tuesday, but they are not the only people running for president this year.

Gary Johnson, former New Mexico governor, is running on the Libertarian Party line.  Jill Stein, physician and former Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate, is this year’s nominee of the Green Party.  And Virgil Goode, former Virginia congressman, carries the banner for the Constitution Party.

But those are just the candidates who have managed to stencil their names on a majority of statewide ballots.  There’s also the Objectivist Party, founded on the teachings of Ayn Rand.  There’s the Justice Party, the Prohibition Party, the Modern Whig Party, at least five different outfits with “Socialism” in the title, and also the Peace and Freedom Party, represented by none other than Roseanne Barr.

We could go on, but things might start to get silly.

In spite of the paragraph I just wrote—and in spite of recent history—so-called third parties have played a real and sometimes significant role in shaping American politics.  To voters under 30, this impact begins and ends with Ralph Nader and his alleged “spoiling” of the 2000 election for Al Gore in Florida—a tenuous claim, at best.  This is a shame, because it clouds a much more colorful history of various rogue candidates and their disruptions of our otherwise two-party system.

In 1992, for instance, independent candidate H. Ross Perot caused enough of a stir not only to ultimately garner nearly 20 million votes nationwide, but managed actually to involve himself in all three presidential debates—even being declared the “winner” of them by the public and media alike.

Four score prior, Theodore Roosevelt invented a new party, the Progressives (known by history as the Bull Moose Party) to challenge Republican incumbent William Howard Taft and Democrat Woodrow Wilson.  Although Roosevelt lost, he did so by splitting the Republican Party—“spoiling” it for Taft, as it were—ceding Wilson a plurality of the vote that he might otherwise not have received.  We can hardly picture world history between 1912 and 1920 without a President Wilson, and it was a third party that made it happen.

Today, for those of us who do not identify with either the Democrats or Republicans, third parties—individually and collectively—represent one tragic, massive tease.

Contemporary third parties exist, after all, on the very assumption that the two Goliaths we have do not encompass the views and concerns of all citizens of these United States.  Gary Johnson speaks about ending the drug war, as Obama and Romney do not.  Jill Stein advocates cutting the defense budget by 50 percent, as Obama and Romney do not.  Ron Paul—perennially pushed, but ultimately resistant, to secede from the GOP—would abolish the Education Department and the CIA, as Obama and Romney most definitely would not.

Conceivably—since the country is divided roughly three ways—an organized, independent third party could pull a TR or better, and perhaps even win a plurality of the vote, rather than simply diluting it amongst the powers that be.

To wit:  A 2010 Gallop poll found 31 percent of Americans identify as Democrats, 29 percent as Republicans, and 38 percent as independent.  That is an awfully large pool of proverbial men and women without a country.

The short answer to “Why don’t third party candidates win?” is easy enough:  We, the 38 percent, are no more in agreement about any particular issue than anyone else—except, I suppose, for the issue of not identifying as Democrats or Republicans.

People have justified figures such as Nader as vehicles for a “protest vote,” and this alludes to the tragedy of the whole business:  Independent voters who detest their two real choices are left with no practical alternative—just a symbolic opting out of the whole system.

What is more, there are institutional mechanisms currently in place that are designed to prevent a serious third party from taking hold in our system, and if you don’t work within the system, you exert no influence whatever.

Except when you do.

I do not expect a third party candidate to be elected president in my lifetime.  Those who run with that expectation are either delusional or pulling your leg.

But it is equally delusional to say third parties are a waste of our time.  At their best, they serve as lobbyists for the people, agitating for causes that never get aired by America’s two partisan wings, but are every bit as important, if not more so, than those that do.  These troublesome gadflies deserve all the support we can muster for them.  To reassert an old cliché:  Do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Questions For the Candidates

This evening, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will meet in Hempstead, New York for a town hall-style debate, in which they will answer questions from members of the audience.  Here are some questions I hope will be asked (but fear will not).

Mr. Obama:  You have cited Republican inertia as the primary reason for various legislative failures in the last four years.  As the incoming class of Republicans promises to contain even fewer “moderates” than the current one, why should we expect congressional negotiations in your second term to yield better results than in your first?

Mr. Romney:  You have stressed the importance of strong sanctions on Iran to prevent it from becoming a nuclear power.  As it stands, the Islamic Republic is subject to sanctions from the United Nations, the European Union, as well as the United States and allies, which have effected a collapse in Iran’s economy and left the country as isolated as it has been in decades.  What manner of pressure would you apply beyond what is already in place?

Mr. Obama:  You have always underlined the necessity in government for compromise, and are fond of saying, “No party has a monopoly on wisdom.”  Name one issue on which the Republican Party’s position is wiser than the Democratic Party’s position.

Mr. Romney:  In his keynote address at the Republican National Convention, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie intoned, “Real leaders don’t follow polls.  Real leaders change polls.”  On which issues do you think the majority of the public is wrong?

Mr. Obama:  This past May, you announced, for the first time as president, that you think same-sex couples ought to be able to get married in the United States.  In 2008, you said, “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman.”  You asserted the same in 2004.  In a 1996 questionnaire, you wrote, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”  Does each of these quotations reflect what you really thought at the time?  What led you to oppose gay marriage in 2004 after having supported it in 1996?

Mr. Romney:  In 1994, you said, “I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it.”  In 2007, you said, “I would like […] to see Roe v. Wade overturned” because it “would effectively be returning to the people and the states the ability to create their own legislation as it relates to abortion.”  This month, you assured, “I’ll be a pro-life president.  I will take pro-life measures.”  As of today, do you believe abortion should be a federal issue or a state issue?  Were the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and the Congress pass a bill to outlaw abortion in some form, would you sign it?

Mr. Obama:  You have stressed the importance of transparency in government.  When did you know that last month’s violence in Libya was a planned attack by organized groups, and not a spontaneous reaction to a film?  How long did you intend to keep this information to yourself?

Mr. Romney:  At a fundraiser in May, you remarked, “There are 47 percent [of the people] who are with [the president], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”  You have since called these comments “completely wrong.”  If so, why did you make them?

Mr. Obama:  Next month, voters in Colorado and Washington will decide whether to legalize possession and consumption of small amounts of marijuana.  Should these ballot initiatives pass, cannabis would effectively be treated the same as alcohol—including an age minimum of 21—necessarily creating a conflict with the federal government, which is tasked to enforce marijuana’s continued prohibition nationwide, as your administration has forcefully done.  Please explain why marijuana should be illegal but alcohol should not.

Mr. Romney:  You have said there should be “no daylight” between the United States and Israel.  Should Israel launch a surprise unilateral attack against Iran, will your administration claim co-responsibility for it?

Mr. Obama:  As a candidate, you promised, “As president I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.”  To date, you have not done so, and your administration squashed a House resolution that did.  Care to comment?

Mr. Romney:  You write, “Marriage is more than a personally rewarding social custom. It is also critical for the well-being of a civilization.”  This being the case, why should marriage then be denied to same-sex couples?  What prevents homosexuals from contributing to the maintenance of civilization’s well-being?

Mr. Obama:  Have you ever regretted your decision to run for president?

Mr. Romney:  Same question.