Another day, another Republican presidential debate. We live-blogged the whole thing but also took note of a few of the night’s winners and, yes, losers.

 Your Browser DoesNot Support IFrames.

 Our thoughts are below. Have your own winners and losers? The comments section awaits.

 WINNERS

 * Newt Gingrich: The former House Speaker didn’t do anything different in this debate than he had in any of the hundreds — we are exaggerating, but only slightly — that preceded it. The difference? His rise to the top of the polls afforded him lots more time to speak. And that’s good for Gingrich, who is a skilled debater. If you went into the debate undecided on Gingrich, you likely came out leaning toward him. One potential trouble spot: Gingrich’s refusal to back away from his belief that we shouldn’t throw out all 11 million people here illegally could come back to bite him in a party that is vehemently opposed to anything that looks or sounds like amnesty.

 * Jon Huntsman: Given the national security/foreign policy focus of this debate, it was one where the former Utah governor had to do well. And, by and large, he did. Huntsman is still learning the game of presidential politics — he veers off message occasionally — but he gave off an overall image of competency and reasonableness. Combine tonight’s performance with the $1.5 million the pro-Huntsman super PAC is currently spending in New Hampshire and now must be the time the governor makes his move in the state. If his numbers don’t start ticking up soon, it’s time to start looking at 2016.

 * Mitt Romney: It was far from Romney’s most commanding performance, but the former Massachusetts governor — yet again — avoided any sort of gang tackle from his rivals. Romney seemed content to not force the issue but when he got his questions he was solid (as usual) in answering them. Romney also made a point to ding Gingrich on his immigration answer; if Newt stays in the top tier there will be lots more where that came from.

 * Oreos: Simply put, the world’s greatest cookie. And, yes, we did eat 10 of them during the course of the debate. (Don’t tell Mrs. Fix.)

 LOSERS

 * Herman Cain: The former Godfather’s Pizza CEO seemed lost for much of tonight’s debate. Obviously domestic policy — “9-9-9”! — is his strong suit but Cain also needed to demonstrate a firmer grasp on the foreign policy front in order to be taken seriously as a contender for the Republican nomination. The Cain slide appears to be well under way — if new polling is to be trusted — and he did nothing to arrest it tonight.

 * Ron Paul: We wondered aloud earlier today if the Texas Congressman might temper some of his national security/foreign policy views in an attempt to court the more mainstream part of the GOP. Nope! Paul’s views on domestic policy are largely in line with the rest of the candidates running for the Republican presidential nomination but on foreign policy he is an outlier. It showed tonight as Paul said we should leave Israel to fend for itself, called for disentangling ourselves from Afghanistan and even for an end to the war on drugs. Paul’s base undoubtedly ate up every word. But, tonight’s debate was a case study in just how hard it will be for Paul to be a genuine contender for the nomination.

 * Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP): Gingrich said an EMP was the biggest threat to the country that no one was talking about. Doing a little reading on it, we can confirm it’s scary stuff. Heck, it stopped the machines in “The Matrix”. And it would apparently make Twitter inoperable. We shudder to think.

 Read more at PostPolitics.com

 Fact-checking the GOP national security debate

 GOP rivals spar on national security

 Have the GOP debates jumped the shark? ||||| The GOP debate on national security Tuesday night raised far more questions — and exposed far more divisions — than it resolved.

 While the topic isn’t central to the 2012 nomination battle, it was nevertheless critical for candidates to meet a modest threshold to remain viable — at least a minimal level of fluency in international affairs.

 Text Size -

 +

 reset Gingrich on immigration GOP on TSA racial profiling Paul, Gingrich spar on security POLITICO 44

 Not everyone hit that mark. But there were no catastrophic moments or major brawls, leaving time for plenty of biting exchanges and opportunities to see who is well-versed in foreign affairs and national security policy — and who is not.

 Here are POLITICO’s six takeaways from the debate, sponsored by CNN, The Heritage Foundation and AEI:

 On immigration, Newt’s in general election mode

 Newt Gingrich drew a clear line on the issue of immigration, declining to take a deport-them-all stand and saying it would be the wrong tack for the “pro-family” party to rip people apart from their loved ones.

 This is clearly tricky ground — it remains to be seen whether the conservative GOP base will accept that stand in a nominee — and it was traveled to ill effect by Rick Perry not too long ago.

 The difference in Gingrich’s case is that, unlike Perry, he didn’t use a term that conservatives associate with liberals — “heart” — and framed his stand in a conversation about “values.” And Gingrich seemed truly confident in his position — again, unlike Perry.

 How it plays out over the next few weeks could dictate the former speaker’s staying power. Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann both dinged Gingrich as embracing what is tantamount to “amnesty.” On the one hand, immigration has proved to be something of a paper tiger in past national races that GOP candidates (see Romney, Mitt and Giuliani, Rudy, class of ’07).

 On the other, immigration has already seriously damaged one candidate already.

 Gingrich, however, is far better known — negatively and positively — than Perry was months back when he wounded himself. And while Gingrich is on potentially rough ground, he declined to take the easy route on a hot-button issue.

 Mitt Romney finally underperformed

 The former Massachusetts governor did fine, and he made no real miscues. (Saying his first name is “Mitt,” when it’s actually Willard, does not quite count.)

 But he also had no breakout moments at a debate that was about an issue where he is supposed to be far ahead of the field.

 He offered up a predictable salute to Israel after somewhat muffing a question at the earlier CBS debate about zeroing out aid to foreign countries, saying that would be the first trip he’d make in office. He focused heavily on Iran — getting a bit tongue-tied at one point — and on China, as threats. ||||| Candidates before a Republican presidential debate in Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2011 / Evan Vucci

 CNN, in conjunction with the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, sponsored the second debate on foreign policy in ten days. Here's our take on the winners and losers from Tuesday night.

 WINNERS:

 Newt Gingrich

 Success begets success. Newt has done well in past debates and it has helped him in the polls. With his polling success, moderators gave him more airtime, which allowed the one-time afterthought and current front-runner to show off his debating skills. He took a risk by going against conservative Republican orthodoxy on immigration, and that could backfire, but overall Gingrich showed that he has been thinking about these issues for decades. And since it was a debate focused on foreign policy, no one asked him about his relationship with mortgage giant Freddie Mac and the $1.6 million he earned, which also helped the former House speaker.

 Jon Huntsman

 As the former ambassador to both China and Singapore, Tuesday's national security debate was Jon Huntsman's moment to shine. And for the most part, he succeeded: Huntsman, who touted throughout the debate his experience living abroad, presented clear policy positions on Pakistan and Afghanistan - at one point getting into a heated debate with Mitt Romney over the Afghan troop drawdown ?- and even managed to bring the conversation back around to the American economy. Perhaps for the first time in the campaign, the former Utah governor was able to set himself apart from the rest of the GOP crowd.

 Ron Paul

 This was the Texas lawmaker's strongest debate, getting lots of airtime and challenging many of his rivals about U.S. foreign policy. His views are not in the mainstream of Republican orthodoxy, but he is consistent in his beliefs and not afraid to tell voters what he really thinks. His fundraising numbers could go up in the short-term, based on his debate performance Tuesday night, even if long-term it may be hard for him to broaden his support.

 Michele Bachmann

 Despite having largely been written off as a major player in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, Rep. Michele Bachmann delivered a strong performance in Tuesday's debate, demonstrating her confidence discussing policy issues, and taking her competitors to task when they faltered. In a heated exchange with Rick Perry over providing aid to Pakistan, the Minnesota lawmaker blasted the Texas governor for what she described as his "highly na?ve" take on the issue; later, she sparred with Newt Gingrich for his stance on immigration. Whether or not Bachmann's performance was strong enough to get her back in the game remains to be seen - but she certainly earned more screen time than in recent debates.

 Mitt Romney

 Romney had one of his worst performances of the 11 debates so far, but he still managed to do fairly well. Romney is a front-runner for a reason: he has been running for president for five years and that practice has paid off for the former Massachusetts governor. Romney skillfully turned questions about foreign policy into answers about domestic issues where he was able to contrast his own positions with those of President Obama, cementing the idea that this race is going to come down to Romney and one other candidate.

 Rick Santorum

 Rick Santorum is still widely considered a long-shot candidate, but he earned his fair share of airtime in Tuesday's debate. And while the former Pennsylvania senator may not have said much to change how America feels about him - he endorsed racial profiling Muslims and mistakenly referred to Africa as a country - he made his best effort to make his way back onto the public's radar.

 LOSERS

 Herman Cain

 Herman Cain did not have the standout moment he needed to prove to voters he has a command of foreign policy. After surging in the polls, Cain's campaign has lost momentum in recent days, most notably after stumbling over a question regarding Libya. The only memorable moment from Cain in this debate came when he flubbed debate moderator Wolf Blitzer's name, calling the CNN anchor "Blitz."

 Rick Perry

 The Texas governor took some bold positions during this debate, but his policy stances were vigorously challenged by his colleagues. Perry almost seemed to immediately backtrack on the tough stance he took against foreign aid to Pakistan after Michele Bachmann called his position "naive." Perry was also on the defense when other candidates -- Mitt Romney, Herman Cain and Ron Paul -- said they disagreed with Perry's assertion that the U.S. should consider a no-fly zone over Syria. ||||| The former House speaker and newly minted GOP front-runner had a strong debate night Tuesday -- but might have damaged his candidacy with immigration comments

 Tuesday night's CNN national-security debate in Washington was a meaty affair featuring candidates actually making arguments to defend differing positions -- imagine that. The forum proved a double-edged sword for Newt Gingrich, the newly anointed front-runner of the moment: As he usually has in debates, he turned in a strong performance. But he also found himself defending a position on immigration that's at odds with the Republican base -- and that could come back to haunt him politically.

 A few takeaways from the pre-Thanksgiving face-off:

 1. A "heartless" moment for Gingrich? The former House speaker found himself mounting a forceful argument for comprehensive immigration reform, including legalization for some illegal immigrants, particularly those brought to the U.S. as children. When Texas Gov. Rick Perry defended that same position in an earlier debate -- saying to those who would punish such children, "I don't think you have a heart" -- it went over like a lead zeppelin with conservatives, many of whom haven't given him a second look ever since. Gingrich took a perilously similar line: "I don't see how the party that says it's the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration family which destroys families that have been here a quarter century. And I'm prepared to take the heat for saying, let's be humane in enforcing the law, without giving them citizenship, but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families."

 As Michele Bachmann gingerly pointed out, that's a position many on the right consider tantamount to amnesty. Perry jumped on board with Gingrich's stance, while Mitt Romney disagreed, saying what's needed is "turning off the magnets of amnesty." Gingrich has a history of moderation on immigration and outreach to Hispanic voters -- he voted for Reagan's amnesty bill in the 1980s -- a legacy that could serve him well in a general election, but is likely to become an obstacle to getting to the general election first. As Republican primary voters give Gingrich a closer look, his willingness to stake our unpopular positions, then defend them with his usual indignant certitude, could be a problem.

 2. Nonetheless, a good night for Newt. Judging from the polls, a lot of Republican voters tuned into the debate looking to pin their hopes on the surging Gingrich, and he gave them a lot to like, with snappy comebacks and ferocious defenses of tough security positions. At the very beginning of the debate, he argued in favor of the Patriot Act against Ron Paul's civil libertarianism: "I don't want a law that says after we lose a major American city, we're sure going to come and find you," he said. "I want a law that says, you try to take out an American city, we're going to stop you." Gingrich's facility for argument was on ample display, and he even skipped the media-bashing that's such a tried and true weapon in his debate arsenal.

 It wasn't all smooth sailing: Gingrich jumped into a dispute about Afghanistan troop levels only to ignore the question and wander off topic, saying, "I'm a little confused about what exactly we're currently debating." And his overall performance could well end up overshadowed by his immigration heresy. Before the debate had even ended, Bachmann's campaign was out with an email headlined, "Newt Gingrich's Open Door to Illegal Immigrant Amnesty" -- surely not the last where that came from.

 3. The Huntsman-Paul axis. Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman found himself on the same side as Texas Rep. Ron Paul on a number of issues, from civil liberties (they are for them) to keeping lots of troops in Afghanistan (they are against that). On the former, Paul responded to Gingrich by saying, "This is like saying that we need a policeman in every house, a camera in every house because we want to prevent child-beating and wife-beating. You can prevent crimes by becoming a police state." On Afghanistan, Huntsman had a spirited exchange with Romney, who said commanders on the ground should dictate troop levels: "At the end of the day, the president of the United States is commander-in-chief. Commander in chief. Of course you're going to listen to the generals. But I also remember when people listened to the generals in 1967, and we had a certain course of action in South Asia that didn't serve our interests very well." Huntsman and Paul similarly echoed each other on cutting defense spending.

 Huntsman had a good debate, showing off his foreign-affairs expertise, turning repeatedly to the economy as a national security issue and getting a lot of airtime. But in a party where Paul is clearly an outlier, Huntsman's alignment with the Texan might not be a winner.

 4. Romney: still untouched. It wasn't a standout night for the former Massachusetts governor, who made his usual points in his usual matter-of-fact way. He seemed surprised when Huntsman had a good comeback to his commanders-on-the-ground line, and faded to the background for many of the debate's more substantive exchanges. Romney came alive at the end with a good argument against Perry's proposal for a no-fly zone over Syria, saying, "They have 5,000 tanks in Syria. A no-fly zone wouldn't be the right military action -- maybe a no-drive zone. This is a nation which is not bombing its people."

 But it was a good night for Romney in the sense that the other candidates, as they so often have in the past, again refrained from taking him on. This time it was Perry who notably took a pass: "Here we go again, Mitt. You and I standing by each other again and you used the words about the magnets," Perry began in response to Romney's argument about immigration amnesty. But the expected segue into Perry's previously deployed attack line, about the illegal immigrants once hired to work on Romney's property, never came.

 5. Herman Cain: still flailing. The businessman continues to prove his inability to get through the most basic exchange about foreign policy. He said he would orient the Transportation Security Administration toward "targeted identification," but then couldn't define what that meant. Asked if he would support an Israeli attack on Iran, he fell back on his usual strategy of a heavily qualified, lean-on-advisers answer that frequently and perplexingly mentioned the "mountainous terrain" in Iran, as if that topographical factoid were enough to make him knowledgeable. And to add to the confusion, he called Wolf Blitzer "Blitz."

 6. Bachmann, Perry, Santorum: running out of time to make a splash. Bachmann had another good debate -- the congresswoman, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, is well versed in foreign policy, confounding those who would dismiss her as a lightweight. She called Perry "highly naive" for wanting to cut off aid to Pakistan, which she termed "too nuclear to fail," and made a fluent defense of realism in the face of ideological glibness. And Bachmann cautiously but successfully drew Gingrich into the immigration dialogue that could prove the night's most significant exchange politically. Perry, for his part, didn't fall on his face and had a good command of detail. Santorum, as usual, knew his stuff and wanted to make sure you noticed (though he also said, "Africa was a country on the brink").

 But all three candidates, who are now the field's bottom-feeders, need a breakout moment at this point to reignite -- or, in Santorum's case, ignite for the first time -- their prospects among Republican primary voters. And the bottom line was, none of them got it.

 Image credit: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst |||||

Write a summary.

– Newt Gingrich got more airtime than usual in last night's national security-focused Republican debate, and most pundits agree that his performance was good enough to win over plenty of undecided voters. "Gingrich showed that he has been thinking about these issues for decades," writes Corbett B. Daly at CBS News. Jon Huntsman showed his competence, and Mitt Romney did well despite turning in one of his weakest debate performances so far, while Herman Cain and Rick Perry floundered, he writes. Gingrich showed that he's a skilled debater, but "his refusal to back away from his belief that we shouldn’t throw out all 11 million people here illegally could come back to bite him in a party that is vehemently opposed to anything that looks or sounds like amnesty," notes Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post. Gingrich's "snappy comebacks and ferocious defenses of tough security positions" will have impressed many GOP voters, but his argument for immigration reform will make the debate "a double-edged sword" for him, concludes Molly Ball at the Atlantic. His history of moderation on immigration might serve him well in a general election, but it won't do him any favors in the Republican primaries, she writes. Romney "made no real miscues," but he had "no breakout moments at a debate that was about an issue where he is supposed to be far ahead of the field," notes Maggie Haberman at Politico. Michele Bachmann "made her points clearly and succinctly, and seemed like she belonged on the stage," and while Ron Paul performed strongly "within his predictable boundaries: fewer wars, less government intrusion, and less aid to foreign nations," he did nothing to show that he can broaden his support, she writes.


Here is a news article: The neat thing about high-falutin' technology these days is that if you lose it, many times you can use software to track it. Which is all well and good, except when that's all you can do — watch as it travels around without you. Such was the case for a woman who left her iPad on a plane seat.

 Sally thought she left her iPad on the seat next to her on an American Airlines flight that ended in New York City, reports The Post-Standard. After she called Lost and Found and left messages, she logged on to MobileMe, which lets you track your electronics via GPS. So she did — and saw it was at an address in Long Island, N.Y.

 Sally then contacted American Airlines and police at the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey to tell them her iPad was taken and she knew exactly where it was. She kept watching it, waiting for the police to act. And they didn't.

 "I was frustrated after days of this. So I sent a message to the iPad," she said. And then it started traveling around!

 It went from JFK Airport to L.A. back to JFK, to San Francisco and then JFK again. She had a sneaking suspicion it was an airline employee, what with all that traveling.

 Hootnick then used another application to make the iPad beep every two minutes along with the messages saying she knew where it was and that she'd called the cops, as well as contacting American Airlines again.

 They took a month to respond, after she emailed again and said she was going to call a consumer protection agency. Sally then spoke twice to a police detective. She can't track the iPad now, because she's replaced it, and turned off her wireless service to the old iPad.

 American Airlines isn't commenting on the ongoing investigation, and officials with the Port Authority have not returned calls from The Post-Standard.

 Manlius woman tracks her stolen iPad online, but authorities fail to act [The Post-Standard]

 From ConsumerReports.org: ||||| Manlius, NY - Sally Hootnick followed her missing iPad as it moved from New York City to California and back.

 She told the suspected thief: I know where you live and I’ve called the police. She also ordered the tablet-sized computer to beep every two minutes.

 She did all that without leaving her Manlius home.

 Armed with a computer application called MobileMe, Hootnick pursued the iPad she believed was stolen after she left it on an American Airlines plane in New York City.

 “I just wanted to harass who ever took it,” Hootnick said. “I didn’t want him to enjoy it if he was using it.”

 Hootnick’s story began when she took her iPad on a family vacation to the Turks and Caicos islands in the Caribbean. The family returned to the United States on April 1, landing at John F. Kennedy International Airport.

 Hootnick remembers using the iPad on the flight, and believes she may have set it down on the seat while gathering her things from the overhead compartment after the plane landed.

 In a taxi on the way to a hotel, Hootnick realized the device was missing. That night, she reported the iPad missing in a message left on the answering machine at the airline’s lost and found department. She left another message in the morning.

 Then Hootnick remembered she had MobileMe, a computer application that uses global positioning satellites to track electronic devices like iPads.

 Using another computer, she found the iPad. It wasn’t at the airport. It was in a house on Long Island, and by clicking on the address Hootnick could see the two-story house with the curving driveway on Google Earth.

 “Suddenly, I knew it wasn’t going to be in lost and found,” she said.

 Hootnick contacted American Airlines and police at the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey. ’’My iPad was taken and I know where it is,” she told them.

 She continued to watch her iPad remotely while waiting for the police to act.

 “I was frustrated after days of this. So I sent a message to the iPad,” Hootnick said.

 She typed in the Long Island address and said, “I know where you are and I called the police.”

 Hootnick said she hoped the message would intimidate the person to put the device in the airline’s lost and found.

 “The next day my iPad started traveling. I was watching it everyday, I was becoming a little obsessive,” Hootnick said.

 Sitting at home at another computer, Hootnick watched remotely as her iPad traveled to the JFK parking lot. It sat there for two days. Then she watched it travel to the Los Angeles airport and back to JFK, to the San Francisco airport and back to JFK.

 With the device traveling that often, Hootnick suspected the iPad was being used by an airline employee.

 Using another application, she sent the computer a command to make an annoying “beeeep” every two minutes and send messages saying she knew where the person lived and had called authorities.

 She traded emails with the airline notifying the company that she believed an employee had her iPad. A month later when no one acted, Hootnick emailed the airline that she was going to contact a consumer protection agency.

 The next day, a person from American Airlines corporate security called, asking for information. She had two more conversations with a police detective asked by American Airlines to look into the case.

 American Airlines won’t comment on Hootnick’s case because it’s the subject of an ongoing investigation, said Ed Martelle, speaking for the airline.

 The company is not responsible for lost or stolen items, but does not condone theft, he said.

 The case now resides with the Port Authority, whose officials have not returned several calls from The Post-Standard.

 As for the iPad, Hootnick no longer knows where it is. When she replaced the device she turned off the wireless service to the old iPad, and that means she can no longer track it.

 The iPad is probably useless to the person who has it, Hootnick said. If anyone tries to buy wireless service for the device the serial number will pop up as it being reported stolen, Hootnick said.

 “It’s probably in the river,” she said.

  |||||
A summary of this is?

– There's an app for pretty much everything—except cutting through bureaucracy. A woman who mistakenly left her iPad on a plane was able to track the whereabouts of the device, but couldn't convince authorities to follow up on it, reports the Syracuse Post-Standard, via the Consumerist. The woman was fairly certain she left the iPad on a plane after deboarding in New York City, and after leaving messages with American Airlines, she used the GPS function of MobileMe to find that the iPad was in a house on Long Island. She contacted airline and law-enforcement authorities with the exact location, but no action was taken. She suspects an airline employee pocketed the iPad because it then made several trips back and forth between JFK airport and California. She can't trace it anymore because she replaced the iPad and shut off wireless service to the old one. At one point, she used an app to make it beep every two minutes. “I just wanted to harass who ever took it,” she said. “I didn’t want him to enjoy it if he was using it.”


Write a summary based on this article:

CORRECTIONS: Did you find an error?

 LETTERS: Have an opinion? We want to hear it.

 TIPS: Is there a story we should be covering? ||||| Superintendent hopes for re-evaluation of celibacy

 Nancy Kotowski said Wednesday that she hopes the revelation this week that she had a long-term relationship with a priest will open a dialogue within the Catholic Church about its clerical celibacy requirements.

 Kotowski, the Monterey County superintendent of schools, said the "physical aspect" of her long-term relationship with the Rev. Mike Manning ended about three years ago.

 Manning, a prominent figure in the church in Southern California, has taken a leave of absence from his ministry after his relationship with Kotowski, his second cousin, was reported by the San Bernardino Sun and published in The Herald on Wednesday.

 Manning has stepped away from Wordnet, a worldwide Catholic television ministry based in San Bernardino, said John Andrews, a spokesman for the diocese.

 Kotowski said she believes news of her relationship might open discussion about Catholic mandates on celibacy.

 "The reality is that we love the church, we're committed to the church, but I'm hoping a dialogue will open up (about) obligatory celibacy, the whole question of celibacy," she said Wednesday during a telephone interview with The Herald. "Is it right for all people?"

 The Sun story described communications between Kotowski and the priest. The correspondence included their conflicts in determining whether Manning should leave the priesthood to marry Kotowski.

 "We're soul mates, and in any human relationship, especially one of over 30 years, you reach a decision-making

 Advertisement

 point, and our relationship reached that point," Kotowski said.

 Kotowski said she takes exception to media descriptions of her relationship with Manning as an "affair" because she believes theirs was a life-long commitment.

 "It's a 30-year relationship of love for one another," she said. "That's what it was."

 Kotowski, 59, and Manning, 70, are cousins on her mother's side, and did not grow up together, she said. Manning left for the seminary when he was 14, and she was 3.

 Kotowski attended Manning's ordination and first Mass, but their paths did not cross again until she was in her late 20s, she said.

 Both families know of their relationship and have even welcomed them at family gatherings, she said.

 "My family knows him and loves Father Mike. My family knows of our closeness and our relationship, and they're very happy we have each other on our life journey. They know we're kindred spirits and soul mates."

 They are now embracing celibacy, Kotowski said, because she supports Manning's calling.

 "It's a struggle, but we know God is calling to us, so we honor that," she said.

 Kotowski would not say how long the physical aspect of her relationship lasted, nor whether she has had other long-term relationships. She has never married and has no children.

 Kotowski said she is not concerned with how the revelations of her relationship with Manning will play out because she feels she has done nothing wrong or illegal.

 San Bernardino Sun staff writer Josh Dulanay contributed to this story.

 Claudia Meléndez Salinas can be reached at 753-6755 or cmelendez@montereyherald.com.

  |||||

– A popular priest who leads a worldwide TV ministry is taking a leave from his California diocesan duties after revealing an affair with a second cousin. Michael Manning 'fessed up after a local newspaper received a series of intimate notes between Manning and his former lover, a schools superintendent from Monterey County. Manning apparently broke off the relationship with Nancy Kotowski three years ago. "I was living two lives: one as a priest who was vowed to celibacy and another life as a sexually active man in our sexual intimacy," Manning, now 70, told the San Bernardino Sun. "It's very hard when you care for someone, but I love my priesthood more. I admit the fact of my sinfulness. I've done wrong. That's why I've stopped." Manning began his Catholic TV ministry 33 years ago. He appears weekly on The Word in the World on the Trinity Broadcast network. He has announced he's taking a leave from his post with the San Bernardino Diocese, but it's unclear if he'll continue on TV. Kotowski, 59, who called Manning her "soulmate," said she hoped the revelation would spark debate. "The reality is we love the church, but I'm hoping a dialogue will open up about the whole question of celibacy," she told the Monterey Herald.


Write a summary based on this article:

Photo

 After decades of decline, the prevalence of smoking in China has held steady in recent years. Coupled with population growth, this means there are now more smokers in China than ever, according to a new study on global smoking prevalence published this month in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

 China gained almost 100 million smokers between 1980 and 2012, despite an overall decrease in smoking prevalence in the same period from 30.4 percent to 24.2 percent. But prevalence has plateaued, remaining nearly unchanged since 2006. Prevalence is defined as the percentage of the population that smokes every day, adjusted for age.

 Photo

 Using a wide range of sources, including in-country surveys, government statistics and World Health Organization data, researchers also found that China had the highest number of smokers in the world in 2012 with 281 million, about one-third of the world’s smoking population. A report late last year by the state-run broadcaster CCTV put the number of smokers in China around 350 million.

 The study, titled “Smoking Prevalence and Cigarette Consumption in 187 Countries, 1980-2012,” was conducted by researchers at the Seattle-based Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. The paper is among the first to produce a comprehensive global time series on smoking prevalence.

 The findings are significant, said Judith Mackay, senior adviser to the World Lung Foundation, because they highlight the “absolute need for China to awake and really grasp the political nettle of tobacco control.”

 “The study shows that the tobacco epidemic is going to be a whole lot worse before it gets better, particularly in lower income countries,” Dr. Mackay said in a telephone interview. “If they do nothing at all there are going to be massive costs for China in terms of premature deaths, health care costs, environmental costs, economic costs, family costs — there are all manners of costs.”

 Substantial population growth and unchanging smoking prevalence in populous countries such as China, Bangladesh and Indonesia help explain why since 2006 the global decline in daily tobacco smoking has decelerated.

 Photo

 The leveling off of smoking prevalence in China and globally can also be attributed in part to varying degrees of addictiveness.

 “Change in tobacco prevalence typically has been slow, underscoring what a hard habit it is to break,” said Emmanuela Gakidou, professor of global health and director of education and training at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, in a news release.

 The average number of cigarettes consumed daily per smoker in China has increased as well. According to the study, whereas the average smoker consumed about 15 cigarettes a day in 1980, by 2012 that number had risen to 22.

 By contrast, four countries — Canada, Iceland, Mexico and Norway — reduced their smoking prevalence by more than half in the same period. Globally, the average number of cigarettes consumed per smoker per day declined from about 18 to about 17 in 2012.

 The increase in number of smokers in China has taken place in spite of a number of measures enacted by the government in recent years to restrict smoking, which researchers say is among the leading risk factors for death in China.

 These efforts have included a ban on smoking in restaurants and other public places as well as a directive issued in December urging Communist Party officials to quit altogether. But with no penalty for noncompliance, these measures are rarely enforced.

 But while the overall number of smokers in China has increased, the skewed gender ratio of China’s smoking population has only become more pronounced. Only about 4 percent of smokers in China in 2012 were female, down from about 8 percent in 1980. That greater independence and improved economic conditions have not led to an increase in smoking among Chinese women — and Asian women more generally — is “puzzling,” said Dr. Mackay of the World Lung Foundation, considering that these factors have been associated with a rise in smoking among women in the West.

 “It’s been surprising,” said Dr. Mackay. “But we are very thankful for that surprise.” ||||| Story highlights China moves to ban public indoor smoking by end of 2014

 Half of Chinese men smoke, according to survey

 China is largest consumer and producer of tobacco

 China, the world's largest tobacco consumer, is aiming to ban indoor smoking in public areas by the end of the year.

 About one in three cigarettes smoked in the world is in China, according to the World Health Organization. And more than half of Chinese men smoke, according to the Global Adult Tobacco Survey in 2010.

 Although the nation's health ministry issued guidelines in 2011 to ban smoking in places like hotels and restaurants, they haven't been "strictly enforced," according to Xinhua, China's state-run news agency.

 The China's National Health and Family Commission is now working on a tobacco control law with clear punishments, according to Xinhua.

 The country's health authorities estimate over a million deaths from tobacco-related diseases every year. The WHO warns that if tobacco use is not decreased in China, these deaths will increase to 3 million by 2050.

 JUST WATCHED China's smoking habit Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH China's smoking habit 04:28 PLAY VIDEO

 Last month, Chinese government officials were told not to smoke in public places such as hospitals, public transport or schools to set a good example for the public.

 The latest moves by the Chinese government on tobacco are "hopeful," said Dr. Judith Mackay, the senior adviser at the World Lung Foundation, who examines tobacco issues in China.

 About 32 Chinese cities have passed their own rules to restrict public smoking, she added.

 "China stands on its own in the magnitude of the problem," said Mackay. "Unless there is change in China, we won't proceed further in reducing the tobacco epidemic in the world."

 Tobacco use in China has far-reaching consequences, she said.

 "This isn't a health problem. It's a huge economic problem. There's all these things ranging from medical and health care costs, the costs to the families and there's the cost of secondhand smoke." |||||

– The world's biggest cigarette consumer is taking steps to stamp out smoking in indoor public spaces—and unlike earlier anti-smoking measures in China, officials say this one will be strictly enforced with clear penalties put in place, CNN reports. A third of all smoking worldwide takes place in the country, and "unless there is change in China, we won't proceed further in reducing the tobacco epidemic in the world," a senior adviser at the World Lung Foundation says. Smoking rates in China have dipped a little over the last few decades, but population growth means there are now more smokers in the country than even before, the New York Times finds. The average number of cigarettes smoked daily per smoker has actually risen since 1980, from 15 to 22. Unlike in other countries, however, greater independence has not caused an increase in smoking among Chinese women: Only around 4% of the country's smokers are female, down from 8% in 1980.


News article:

PHOENIX (AP) — The Arizona Legislature gave final approval Thursday evening to legislation that allows business owners asserting their religious beliefs to refuse service to gays, drawing backlash from Democrats who called the proposal "state-sanctioned discrimination" and an embarrassment.

 CORRECTS TO JUSTIN PIERCE-Republican Rep. Justin Pierce argues in favor of a bill that Republicans say just confirms religious rights. on the House Floor in Phoenix on Thursday, Feb. 20, 2014. House... (Associated Press)

 House Minority Leader Chad Campbell, (D) Phoenix, argues that House Bill 2153 would discriminate against gays and others on the House Floor in Phoenix on Thursday, Feb. 20, 2014. House Bill 2153, written... (Associated Press)

 House Minority Leader Chad Campbell, (D) Phoenix, argues that House Bill 2153 would discriminate against gays and others on the House Floor in Phoenix on Thursday, Feb. 20, 2014. House Bill 2153, written... (Associated Press)

 The 33-27 vote by the House sends the legislation to Republican Gov. Jan Brewer and puts Arizona back at the forefront of a polarizing piece of legislation four years after the state enacted an immigration crackdown that caused a national furor.

 Similar religious protection legislation has been introduced in Ohio, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee and Oklahoma, but Arizona's plan is the only one that has passed. The efforts are stalled in Idaho, Ohio and Kansas.

 Republicans stressed that the bill is about protecting religious freedom and not discrimination. They frequently cited the case of a New Mexico photographer who was sued after refusing to take wedding pictures of a gay couple and said Arizona needs a law to protect people in the state from heavy-handed actions by courts and law enforcement.

 The bill allows any business, church or person to cite the law as a defense in any action brought by the government or individual claiming discrimination. It also allows the business or person to seek an injunction once they show their actions are based on a sincere religious belief and the claim places a burden on the exercise of their religion.

 The legislation prompted a heated debate on the floor of the House, touching on issues such as the religious freedom, constitutional protections and civil rights.

 Opponents raised scenarios in which gay people in Arizona could be denied service at a restaurant or refused medical treatment if a business owner thought homosexuality was not in accordance with his religion. One lawmaker held up a sign that read "NO GAYS ALLOWED" in arguing what could happen if the law took effect, drawing a rebuke for violating rules that bar signs on the House floor.

 Democrats also said there were a host of other scenarios not involving sexual orientations where someone could raise their religious beliefs as a discrimination defense.

 The bill is backed by the Center for Arizona Policy, a social conservative group that opposes abortion and gay marriage. The group says the proposal is needed to protect against increasingly activist federal courts and simply clarifies existing state law.

 "We see a growing hostility toward religion," said Josh Kredit, legal counsel for the group.

 All but three Republicans in the House backed Senate Bill 1062 Thursday evening. All three House Republicans who broke ranks said they had problems with the proposal, though none elaborated at length.

 "I disagree with the bill," said Rep. Ethan Orr. "I think it's a bad bill."

 The two others were Reps. Heather Carter and Kate Brophy McGee.

 The Senate passed the bill a day earlier on a straight party-line vote of 17-13.

 Brewer doesn't comment on pending legislation, but she vetoed a similar measure last year. That action, however, came during an unrelated political standoff, and it's not clear whether she would support or reject this plan.

 The legislation comes also as an increasing number of conservative states grapple with ways to counter the increasing legality of gay marriage.

 Arizona's voters approved a ban on same-sex marriage as a state constitutional amendment in 2008. It's one of 29 states with such prohibitions, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Federal judges have recently struck down bans in Utah, Oklahoma and Virginia, but those decisions are under appeal.

 Republican Sen. Steve Yarbrough called his proposal a First Amendment issue during the Senate debate.

 "This bill is not about allowing discrimination," Yarbrough said. "This bill is about preventing discrimination against people who are clearly living out their faith."

 Democrats say it is an outright attack on the rights of gays and lesbians that will reverberate through the economy because businesses and tourists will avoid Arizona like they did after the passage SB1070 in 2010 that cracked down on immigration.

 "This bill is about going after the rights of the LGBT community in Arizona," said Rep. Chad Campbell, the Democratic minority leader. "This is going to be horrible for our economy."

 But Republicans said it was simply an added protection for the faithful in the state who disapprove of gay marriage and want to be able to reject participating.

 "Please, I will accept you because you are a child of God, I love you because you are a child of God," said GOP Rep. Steve Montenegro. "But please don't ask me to go against my religious beliefs."

 The bill is similar to a proposal last year brought by Yarbrough but vetoed by Brewer. That legislation also would have allowed people or religious groups to sue if they believed they might be subject to a government regulation that infringed on their religious rights. Yarbrough stripped a provision from the bill in hopes Brewer will embrace the new version.

 Civil liberties and secular groups countered that Yarbrough and the Center for Arizona Policy had sought to minimize concerns that last year's bill had far-reaching and hidden implications. During the Senate debate Wednesday, Democrats said the bill could allow people to break nearly any law and cite religious freedom as a defense.

 Yarbrough called those worries "unrealistic and unsupported hypotheticals" and said criminal laws will continue to be prosecuted by the courts.

 Rep. Chad Campbell of Phoenix, the Democratic minority leader, said during debate that gays and lesbians across the country would get the message that they're not welcome in Arizona.

 "We're telling them, 'We don't like you. We don't want you here. We're not going to protect you," he said.

 But the House sponsor, Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, said the bill had been blown out of proportion.

 "We're making some tweaks here because of what's been going on in other states where people have been punished for their beliefs," Farnsworth said.

 Senate President Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, also said the Democrats were making too much of the bill's effect.

 "Sometimes people's rhetoric tends to inflame instead of explain," Biggs said. "And I would suggest if there is going to be a backlash because of 1062 ... it will because of the intemperate and inaccurate rhetoric." ||||| Story highlights Not sure this needs to be a law, governor tells CNN

 Bill allows business owners to deny service to gays, lesbians

 Critics say the measure sanctions discrimination

 Proponents of the bill say it protects people against activist federal courts

 Arizona's Legislature has passed a controversial bill that would allow business owners, as long as they assert their religious beliefs, to deny service to gay and lesbian customers.

 The bill, which the state House of Representatives passed by a 33-27 vote Thursday, now goes to Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican and onetime small business owner who vetoed similar legislation last year but has expressed the right of business owners to deny service.

 "I think anybody that owns a business can choose who they work with or who they don't work with," Brewer told CNN in Washington on Friday. "But I don't know that it needs to be statutory. In my life and in my businesses, if I don't want to do business or if I don't want to deal with a particular company or person or whatever, I'm not interested. That's America. That's freedom."

 As expected, the measure has drawn criticism from Democrats and business groups who said it would sanction discrimination and open the state to the risk of damaging litigation.

 JUST WATCHED Arizona Rep: Law would not shield waiter Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Arizona Rep: Law would not shield waiter 04:42

 JUST WATCHED Arizona passes bill seen as 'anti-gay' Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Arizona passes bill seen as 'anti-gay' 04:30

 On Friday, the LGBT group Wingspan staged a protest march to the governor's office that drew about 200 people. Some carried signs with messages "God created us all equal" and "Shame on Arizona."

 Tucson-based Rocco's Little Chicago Pizzeria posted a photo on its Facebook page of a sign with a message for state lawmakers: "We reserve the right to refuse service to Arizona legislators."

 "It's a ridiculous bill," pizzeria manager Evan Stevens told CNN on Friday. "Arizona has much bigger problems than allowing businesses to discriminate against people."

 In a statement, Anna Tovar, the state senate Democratic minority leader, said: "With the express consent of Republicans in this Legislature, many Arizonans will find themselves members of a separate and unequal class under this law because of their sexual orientation. This bill may also open the door to discriminate based on race, familial status, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability."

 The Greater Phoenix Economic Council, in a letter to Brewer on Friday, urged the governor to veto Senate Bill 1062, saying the "legislation will likely have profound, negative effects on our business community for years to come."

 "The legislation places businesses currently in Arizona, as well as those looking to locate here, in potentially damaging risk of litigation, and costly, needless legal disputes," council President Barry Broome wrote, adding that four unidentified companies have vowed to locate elsewhere if the legislation is signed.

 He added, "With major events approaching in the coming year, including Super Bowl XLIX, Arizona will be the center of the world's stage. This legislation has the potential of subjecting the Super Bowl, and major events surrounding it, to the threats of boycotts."

 On CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper," Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh, a Republican, said the bill would not allow hotel clerks or waiters, for instance, to turn away customers, unless there was a "substantial burden on their sincerely held religious beliefs."

 The bill is being pushed by the Center for Arizona Policy , a conservative group opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage. The group has justified the measure on grounds that the proposal protects people against increasingly activist federal courts.

 "As we witness hostility towards people of faith grow like never before, we must take this opportunity to speak up for religious liberty," the group said on its website, asking people to contact Brewer and urge her to sign the bill. "The great news is that SB 1062 protects your right to live and work according to your faith."

 Cathi Herrod, the center's president, told CNN on Friday, "The Arizona bill has a very simple premise, that Americans should be free to live and work according to their religious faith. It's simply about protecting religious liberty and nothing else."

 Herrod said the bill's opponents are "showing unbelievable hostility toward religious beliefs."

 "America still stands for the principle that religious beliefs matter (for) something in this country, that we have the right to freely exercise our religious beliefs," she said.

 But Robert Boston, a spokesman for the Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State , told CNN the legislation would "fling the door wide open to discrimination, not just against gay people, but basically to any class of individuals that a religious fundamentalist decides he or she doesn't want to deal with."

 He added, "A woman who is pregnant out of wedlock, for example, 'Well, out the door, you don't get served in my business.' "

 The Arizona legislation was passed as conservative states work to counter laws legalizing same-sex marriage. Arizona voters approved a ban on same-sex marriage as a state constitutional amendment in 2008.

 The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona called the bill "unnecessary and discriminatory."

 "What today's bill does is allow private individuals and businesses to use religion to discriminate, sending a message that Arizona is intolerant and unwelcoming," the group said in a statement.

 Some Republican legislators have defended the bill as a First Amendment issue. Democrats dismissed it as an attack on gays and lesbians.

 "It's a very bad day for Arizona," Rep. Chad Campbell, a Phoenix Democrat who voted against the legislation, told CNN Friday.

 He added, "Let there be no doubt about what this bill does. It's going to allow people to discriminate against the gay community in Arizona. It goes after unprotected classes of people and we all know that the biggest unprotected class of people in the state is the LBGT community. If we were having this conversation in regard to African-Americans or women, there would be outrage across the country right now." ||||| In New Mexico, a photographer declined to take pictures of a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony. In Washington State, a florist would not provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. And in Colorado, a baker refused to make a cake for a party celebrating the wedding of two men.

 The business owners cited religious beliefs in declining to provide services celebrating same-sex relationships. And in each case, they were sued.

 Now, as states around the nation weigh how to balance the rights of same-sex couples with those of conservative religious business owners, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona must decide whether to sign legislation that would allow business owners to cite religious beliefs as a legal justification for denying service to same-sex couples.

 Related Coverage Bill Viewed as Anti-Gay Is Passed in Arizona

 The legislation, approved by lawmakers on Thursday, immediately attracted national attention, with conservative religious groups welcoming it as a necessary form of protection for objectors to same-sex marriage, and gay rights groups denouncing it as a license for discrimination. The measure comes at a time when the courts are grappling with how to define the religious rights of private businesses: The Supreme Court is to hear two cases next month in which businesses are seeking exemptions from providing insurance coverage for contraception to their employees, citing the religious beliefs of the companies’ owners.

 “In America, people should be free to live and work according to their faith, and the government shouldn’t be able to tell us we can’t do that,” said Joseph E. La Rue, the legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal organization based in Scottsdale, Ariz., that advocates religious liberty and supports the measure passed by the State Legislature. “Faith shouldn’t be something we have to leave inside our house.”

 But civil libertarians and gay rights advocates say there is a difference between protections for clergy and houses of worship that do not want to participate in same-sex marriage and the obligations of business owners that serve the general public.

 “Religious freedom is a fundamental right, but it’s not a blank check to harm others or impose our faith on our neighbors,” said Daniel Mach, who directs a program on freedom of religion and belief for the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes the Arizona legislation. “Over the years, we as a nation have rejected efforts to invoke religion to justify discrimination in the marketplace, and there’s no reason to turn back the clock now.”

 Ms. Brewer, who has taken no public position on the legislation that will reach her desk next week, is a Republican whose tenure has been punctuated by controversy and political discord over a tough measure on illegal immigrants, which was denounced from the left, and a Medicaid expansion, which was criticized by the right.

 Last year she vetoed a similar religious freedom bill, arguing that it was a distraction from priorities lawmakers had yet to address, including the state budget. And there are similar circumstances this year, as legislators have yet to act on a package of proposed changes to the state’s child welfare system, which has been plagued by a slow response to complaints of abuse and neglect.

 Chuck Coughlin, a public affairs consultant who led Ms. Brewer’s transition team after she was elected governor in 2009 and has remained a close ally, said he was doubtful that she would sign the bill into law, saying, “We already have laws to sufficiently protect people’s religion freedoms in this country, and this bill could actually empower people to discriminate.”

 The bill comes at an awkward time for Ms. Brewer, who has been eager to move beyond controversy in her last year in office (term limits prevent her from running for re-election.)

 She has tried to focus on revitalizing the state’s economy, which is struggling in spite of a rebound of the housing market. The state, which was boycotted by some over the immigration measure, is preparing to host next year’s Super Bowl, and some residents worry that the religious freedom measure could again spur a backlash.

 In a letter to Ms. Brewer on Friday, Gonzalo A. de la Melena Jr., president and chief executive of the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, said the bill, if it becomes law, would “ultimately have the effect of casting Arizona in a negative light that stands to damage our reputation nationwide and globally, and significantly harm our fiscal future.”

 It was just one in a chorus of pleas that the governor to veto the legislation.

 “It sounds like it’s opening the door to hate and bigotry of all stripes,” said Rocco DiGrazia, a Tucson pizzeria owner, who on Friday attracted national attention via social media because he had posted signs on the restaurant’s doors declaring, “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Arizona Legislators.”

 “I make dinner for a living — I’m not a social activist,” Mr. DiGrazia said in a telephone interview. “But I do have a lot of gay customers and employees, and why are you trying to alienate these people?”

 But supporters of the legislation said they would also work hard to persuade Ms. Brewer to sign the measure, in part by disputing much of the criticism it has faced.

 Most states where same-sex marriage is legal have exemptions for religious organizations, but not for private businesses or individuals, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The Arizona measure comes as multiple states are considering such exemptions, with considerable controversy. In Tennessee, the legislature is considering an exemption for wedding vendors; in Kansas, a similar measure was set aside when conservative senators raised concerns about discrimination. In Oregon, opponents of same-sex marriage are seeking to place an initiative on this year’s ballot that would allow individuals or businesses to opt out of participating in same-sex wedding ceremonies.

 Supporters and opponents of the Arizona legislation do not agree on its potential impact. The supporters say it would simply tweak an existing religious freedom law in Arizona to make it clear that private individuals can use religious freedom as a defense in civil litigation; the opponents say it would allow business owners to discriminate against anyone they do not like, citing religious freedom.

 “There is significant fear it will undermine local nondiscrimination laws,” said Sarah Warbelow, the state legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy organization. “This is not about the freedom of individuals to practice their religion, this is about a license to discriminate against individuals.”

 But Josh Kredit, legal counsel of the Center for Arizona Policy, a conservative group that supported the bill, said that Arizona has for years had a religious freedom law that has not been used to justify discrimination, and that the changes to that law made by the new measure are “vitally needed to ensure that in America people are free to live and work according to their faith.”

 “Arizona should be known as a state that welcomes people of faith and protects them,” he said. “These are intentional, purposeful distractions to try to kill this bill.” |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– Arizona is once again at the center of a hot-button national issue, but this time it's gay rights instead of immigration. The state Legislature this week passed a bill that would allow business owners to cite their religious beliefs and refuse service to gay people, reports AP. Now Gov. Jan Brewer must decide whether to sign, and it's anybody's guess whether she will do so, reports the Arizona Republic. She has vetoed similar legislation previously, but she also told CNN yesterday that business owners should be able to "choose who they work with or who they don't work with." Still, business groups such as the Greater Phoenix Economic Council want Brewer to veto the bill because they say it would damage the state's reputation and actually hurt business. Proponents see it as a matter of religious liberty. "In America, people should be free to live and work according to their faith, and the government shouldn’t be able to tell us we can’t do that,” an attorney with the Alliance Defending Freedom tells the New York Times. Counters an ACLU official: “Religious freedom is a fundamental right, but it’s not a blank check to harm others or impose our faith on our neighbors." Kansas' House recently passed similar legislation, but Arizona is the first state whose full legislature has backed it. (Click to read about a new study that suggests the homophobic live shorter lives.)