The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Outcry is Fierce to Cut in Funds by Cancer Group,” describes a furious reaction on social media regarding the decision by the Komen for the Cure foundation, one of the major anti-breast cancer organizations in the country, the one responsible for the pink ribbons, to suspend its support of breast cancer screenings by Planned Parenthood.

The decision was taken in cowardice, at fear of the same heated reaction that has now been generated, because of the dual nature of Planned Parenthood as both one of the major women’s health clinics in the nation and a source of abortions.

As a pro-life Democrat, I am torn by this controversy, understanding the fervor of emotions on both sides, and I am particularly swayed by the fact that one in five women rely on Planned Parenthood for their health coverage. Mayor Bloomberg, experiencing a similar split, donated $250,000 to Planned Parenthood after the Komen decision.

I am also acutely aware, however, of the feelings of pro-life activists who view the taking of an innocent life as murder, and that murder transcends most other considerations.

Since the government is not involved in this controversy, perhaps we should acknowledge the freedom of the Komen Group to make its own decisions in the abortion arena, and the similar freedom of pro-choice individuals to boycott the Komen Group in response. It is terrible, however, to watch the polarization caused by the entry of politics into women’s healthcare, and the deterioration of that healthcare as a result.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “U.S. Drones Stir Outrage in Iraq; Fleet May Grow,” describes the increasing use of a new technology for the military, CIA and now, the State Department.

U.S. technology has always served as the trump card to keep us on top, and the new use of drones for protection of U.S. citizens, especially as monitoring devices for potential threats against State Department convoys, empowers our officials in their diplomatic undertakings.

It’s also important to understand the difference between State Department drones and military ones. The most important, that State Department drones are unarmed, gives their use added legitimacy. In fact, the wingspan for unarmed aerial vehicles (UAVs) is 18 inches compared to 55 feet for the armed Predator and Reaper drones more typically employed over Pakistan.

Of course, the Iraqi government is now making a big deal about these unarmed UAVs, claiming sovereignty over its own skies. However, much of the clamor is for domestic political purposes, and after the withdrawal of U.S. armed troops, it is hard to fathom that the current government would stop the use of these drones, employed partly for their own protection.

We’ll see what happens. However, after recent events in Somalia, our President is getting a reputation as someone not to mess around with.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Economy Grew at Quicker Pace in 4th Quarter,” provides some element of hope for the Obama administration. Fears of a double-dip recession seem to have largely subsided, and the pace of growth, while slow, is picking up.

The growth rate in the fourth quarter rose to an annual equivalent of 2.8 percent. Credit is expanding, and consumer spending also rose slightly. The housing sector is also undergoing a comeback, even though the market remains very depressed.

There are some storm clouds on the horizon, however. The European sovereign debt crisis still isn’t resolved, and the conflict with Iran could be detrimental if that nation tries to close the Straits of Hormuz, a main transit waterway for the world’s oil.

Also, our productivity has risen to an extent where we are creating the same output as before the 2007 crisis, only with six million fewer jobs. And the unemployment rate has emerged as an overall barometer for the economy, affecting everything from consumer spending to political dynamics.

Economic statistics can be misleading, and in this election year, the obfuscation is sometimes intentional. And it’s hard to envisage any kind of reform in an election year either, which may be a good thing with the Tea Party in effective charge of the House.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “As Tensions Rise, Egypt Bars Exit of Six Americans,” describes a situation fraught with peril and a possible suspension of U.S. military aid.

Congress has conditioned foreign aid on the continuation of democratic progress in Egypt, and the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, must certify that progress to release the appropriated funds. After President Obama specifically called Egypt’s military leader, Field Marshall Tantawi, to emphasize that process, the Egyptian government has refused to allow six Americans working at NGOs to leave the country.

The organizations involved, the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute, are pro-democracy groups working in Egypt to affect positive change. They have been repeatedly raided by police in recent months, and this week, one of the directors, Sam LaHood, was arrested at an Egyptian airport before he took a flight to Dubai.

Complicating matters further, Mr. LaHood is the son of Ray LaHood, the transportation secretary in President Obama’s administration.

Now, there is a big kerfuffle, and the United States’ military aid to Egypt, totaling $1.3 billion is at stake. This sum was previously regarded as inviolate as a positive reinforcement for the 1979 treaty with Israel. With Islamic-based parties moving into power, even the treaty itself is at stake.

It is a tangled situation even for professional diplomats and a skilled negotiator such as Ms. Clinton.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Fed Vows to Keep Rates Near Zero Until Late 2014,” describes an engaged Federal Reserve, trying to make up for the gridlock in Washington by pursuing its own actions to nurse along our economic recovery.

After its latest meeting, the Fed promised to keep interest rates low through the end of 2014, an expansion of 18 months compared to its previous commitment. Ben Bernanke, so vilified by Republicans, may be doing more to help the economy than they are.

The ability of monetary policy to help the economy has been much debated of late, but when you’re without a job, every action helps. The Fed predicted that our rate of growth would recover slowly, from 2.7 percent this year, to 3.2 percent the next, and up to 4 percent in 2014.

Significantly, the Fed is making promises that extend beyond the tenure of its current head, Ben Bernanke. And the Fed can always change policy before then should the economic “facts on the ground” change as well.

The Fed’s outlook on unemployment remains grim. They are predicting a rate of at least 6.7 percent by the end of 2014, due to a gradually improving condition. But that may not be enough to save President Obama from what promises to be a brutal reelection campaign.

And, if a Republican gets in, the situation may deteriorate further. Because, in addition to rejecting scientific advice on global warming, Republicans do not believe in Keynesian economics either and are likely to reduce spending at the very worst time.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Romney Unleashes Attack with Gingrich Sole Target,” describes an increasingly desperate situation for the Romney campaign. After being trounced by Gingrich in the South Carolina primary, and with national polls now showing a Gingrich lead, Romney is trying to reproduce what he did in Iowa, bury the Gingrich campaign in a sea of negativity.

It’s not working. The Adelson family has now ponied up an additional $5 million to counter the Romney’s advantage in organization and fundraising. And you can only go negative so many times before the voters turn off.

We all know the story of Newt Gingrich’s history, his so-called baggage, etc. The reason he is winning is because he is the best debater on the stage. And that’s the way it should be in a democracy.

Tonight, finally, President Obama will get equal time. His State of the Union address will put to rest all the Republican nonsense about him being a socialist, European, etc. The fact of the matter is that his policies have been relatively middle of the road, many of them having been proposed by Republicans in the past.

Anyway, for a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, it’s enjoyable to watch the Republicans in a circular firing squad. However, I wouldn’t be complacent about Newt Gingrich. Romney has already made that mistake, and now, it’s too late for him to rectify it.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Romney Relents on Tax Returns as Race Rolls On,” describes an embattled candidate and a confident winner, and the categorization is not what you would have thought just two short weeks ago.

And that’s because Newt Gingrich is the confident winner. He seems to have captured the anger of the Republican base, and his debating skills have eclipsed Romney and Santorum because he is not afraid to show some unscripted anger. A candidate who, as Gingrich describes it, is “comfortable in his own skin,” will always beat a phony.

Now, Gingrich does have some high negatives in the country at large, but I’m not so sure the Democrats should be happy if he ends up as the nominee. That unpredictable element could always break in his favor and convince independents to vote for him.

Another debate occurs this evening on NBC in Tampa, Florida, and that’s got to be about the last place that Romney wants to be. Debates are good for democracy, but they represent free air time for Gingrich that he otherwise couldn’t afford. And Mr. Gingrich’s style is tending to create standing ovations by the audience, also reinforcing his message and rise in the polls.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Tightening Race is Abrupt Blow to Romney Team,” describes the almost unbelievable turnaround in the Republican presidential primary in South Carolina.

Just a week or so ago, Romney appeared to be the odds-on favorite to win and complete a three-contest sweep, for the first time ever. Then, the Iowa Elections Board declared Santorum the winner in that primary where Romney was previously touted as the leader by eight votes. And Gingrich began his super PAC attack ads on Romney’s tenure as CEO of Bain Capital.

Since then, Gingrich has excelled at televised debates while Romney has hemmed and hawed about releasing his tax returns. And the ability of Gingrich to pivot on a question about his ex-wife, to transform it into an attack on the media, was nothing short of masterful.

Now Gingrich is ahead in the polls, and the Romney camp has switched to a long-term strategy, to grind it out in the hunt for delegates. Romney still possesses the lead in organizational strengths, but then so did Hillary Clinton in her battle with Barack Obama.

The candidates are already starting to look ahead beyond Florida (January 31) to Nevada (February 4). I’m glad not to be living in those states where the citizens will be bombarded by ads day and night.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Afghan Soldiers Step Up Killings of Allied Forces,” describes an irreconcilable difference between the cultures in Afghanistan and the United States.

As a result of these differences, the very Afghan soldiers being trained by Allied Forces are committing acts of homicide against U.S. forces. Though previously dismissed as isolated incidents, it appears there is a mutual disrespect between the two sides that has led to the murder of 58 Allied Forces by the Afghan Army and police units.

The issue came to the fore again when videos surfaced of U.S. Marines pissing on dead Afghan civilians. Believe it or not, these pictures were praised by certain members of U.S. forces on their respective Facebook accounts.

Afghanistan has a history of rejecting foreign forces on their soil, and it seems that even after the U.S. Army leaves, they will receive no thanks for their efforts.

At least, we can be thankful to have rid the country of Al Qaeda and to have eventually found and eliminated Osama bin Laden. And perhaps we have brought some measure of civilization, at least in the way they educate and respect their female members.

The killing of U.S. soldiers though by the very people they are training is particularly inexcusable.

The lead story in The New York Times, “Obama is Faulted by Swing Voters in a New Survey,” while being spun with the typical Obama-is-in-trouble attitude that has become prevalent in today’s media — because it provides interest and connotes a horse race — carries hope for the President in some important aspects.

First of all, and most important, it notes that the economy is starting to improve, bringing some hope for a positive trajectory as Election Day inexorably approaches. Second, the polling suggests that independent voters have yet to form an opinion about Mitt Romney, the probable and strongest Republican nominee. This gives the Democrats an opportunity to define him — and that definition is increasingly spinning into a rich out-of-touch candidate, a member of the one percent, as the OWS protestors convincingly put it.

Most important, it shows an increasing lack of enthusiasm among Republicans for their eventual nominee. While many of them would vote for even Ron Paul over the President, this turnoff on the race translates to a reluctance to volunteer, a critical element in convincing undecided voters in a close election.

And the President has yet to start his full-court press. The campaign is on the verge of bursting into full view, both with a soon-to-be-deluge of advertisements in swing states and the very public State of the Union address scheduled for Tuesday.

And the President has a very convincing case to make and, as a campaigner, the talent needed to communicate it. While the Republican elite is cynically trying to create a bandwagon effect, they may very well find themselves overextended, out on a limb, just as they were caught by their reluctance to renew the payroll tax cut.