Sarah Palin- A Clear Choice for Gun Owners

Why I like Sarah Palin:

Few events have shaken up a recent campaign like the choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin- an NRA Life Member- for the Republican vice-presidential nomination. Proff of Sen. John McCain's wisdom in choosing her is that more Amercians watched her acceptance speech than watched Barack Obama's. Many commentators comapared Gov. Palin's natural stage presence to Ronald Regan's.

I understand why many political examiners feel she is unqualified for such a position, and by all means, they do hold many true points. However, what won me over to support her is more on a simpler level. I like her rooted American outdoor heritage and the fact that she sticks to her guns.

Shortly after she was born, her parents, Chuck and Sally Heath, moved from Idaho to Alaska to enjoy the hunting and fishing lifestyle of America's "Last Frontier." And enjoy it they have: The Heaths were on their way to their caribou hunting camp when they go the news their daughter would be running for vice president, and the governor's office is adorned with the skin of a bear that her father bagged... awesome.

As a young girl, the future governor went along on these adventures. "I was taught to use and respect guns at a very young age," she told USA Today in 2006. "We hunt as much as we can and I'm proud to say our freezer is full of wild game we harvested here in Alaska." While the mainstream urban media considers moose burgers exotic, Gov. Palin considers them dinner. As she told Women's Adventure magazine, "My parents taught me to respect the land and the wildlife. When it comes to hunting, you're going to hunt what you consume and leave no waste."

Sarah Palin has carried the values of her youth into practice in the governor's office. Under ther leadership, Alaska joined 30 other states in submitting a brief to the Supreme Court in the Heller case, supporting the individual rights view of the Second Amendment and attacking the District of Columbia gun ban.

Gov. Palin has also stood strong against anti-hunting groups and infavor of wildlife management based on sound science. For example, because of the importance of subsistence hunting for many rural Alaskans, the state maintains a scientific program to ensure sustainable game animal populations by monitoring and controlling predator populations in certain areas. While Alaska maintains strict rules against use of aircraft for hunting, longtime anti-hunting U.S. Rep. George Miller, D-CA, proposed a bill to outlaw use of aircraft in these sparingly used state management programs.

Gov. Palin didn't hesitate to send Rep. Miller a strong response: "You have misconstrued the reality of life in Alaska and the importance of wild game as food to the people of this state," her letter began. She went on to explain how the program worked, and urged the congressman "not to swallow the rhetoric of special interest advocacy groups trying to raise money for their inaccurate campaigns."

Beyond her actions as governor, perhaps the best testimony that Sarah Palin would stick to her guns as vice president is her father's. "The rest of the kids, I could force them to do something," he told his daughter's biographer. "But with Sarah, there was no way. From a young age she had a mind of her own. Once she made up her mind, she didn't change it."

That's the kind of spirit gun owners need on our side in Washington.

Sources: American Rifleman, November 2008, and Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA Executive Director

NOBama, Gun Control Outrages

By GOD, we can NOT let Obama run this nation.

Barack Obama claims to support our Second Amendment Rights. Here is his position on the subject of Gun Control- in his own words...

"I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry."
Source: Chicago Tribune, April 27, 2004

"...just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right..."
Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate

"I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban."
Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes, Oct. 21, 2004

"I'll continue to be in favor of handgun law registration requirements and licensing requirements for training"
Source: Chicago Defender, July 5, 2001

For more, check out www.GunBanObama.com

On the Record
Supported a complete ban on handguns... yes.
Voted to ban most rifle ammunition... yes.
Refused to sign the brief supporting an individual Second Amendment right in the Heller case... yes.
Voted to allow the prosecution of people who use handguns for self-defense in their homes... yes.
Supported reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearm industry... yes.
Opposes Right-to-Carry... yes.
Supports gun registration... yes.
Voted for one-gun-a-month handgun purchase limits... yes.
Voted against confirming pr0-Second Amendment Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court... yes.
Supports local and state gun bans... yes.
Supports bans on standard capacity magazines... yes.
Supported increasing the excise tax on firearms by 500 percent... yes.
Supports laws mandating the use of "micro-stamping"... yes.
Supports mandatory waiting periods... yes.
Served on the board of directors of the most anti-gun foundation in America... yes.

What McCain said on all these issues.... NO!

Gov. Palin on SNL

Mark Wahlburg backstage

Andy Samberg's Impression of Mark Walberg

Why Living Together Before Marriage Doesn't Work

Why Living Together Before Marriage Doesn't Work

Mike & Harriet McManus
Authors, Living Together

No group is more supportive of living together—despite evidence that four out of five couples who begin cohabiting will not build a lasting marriage—than the young. While 90 percent of teenagers believe in marriage, they view cohabitation as a stepping-stone in the relationship—a good way to get know their partner and avoid a future divorce. Sixty-nine percent say they “approve” of couples “living together before they get married.” They say, “If things don’t work out, we can chalk it up to experience and move on. At least we will have learned something about ourselves and marriage.”

Pamela Smock, Ph.D., a sociologist at the University of Michigan, writes: “Common sense suggests that premarital cohabitation should provide an opportunity for couples to learn about each other, strengthen their bonds, and increase their chances for a successful marriage. . . . The evidence, however, suggests just the opposite. Premarital cohabitation tends to be associated with lower marital quality and to increase the risk of divorce, even after taking into account of variables known to be associated with divorce. . . . The degree of consensus about this central finding is impressive.”

What starts as lower levels of commitment among those who choose to cohabit eventually translates into lower levels of relationship happiness both before and after the wedding, if there is a wedding. This outcome will come as a surprise to men who insist on living with a woman before considering marriage. The truth is, instead of improving their odds of success, they unwittingly improve their odds of failure.

Why is the divorce rate so much higher for couples who marry after cohabiting?

Two theories have credence:

1. The “Selection Effect”

The first theory, put forth by Dr. Bumpass, is the “selection effect.”

Those who live together before marriage differ substantially from those who do not, and those differences increase the likelihood of marital instability for former cohabitors. Cohabitors tend to be less educated. For example, cohabiting women are twice as likely to be high-school dropouts than college graduates. Cohabitors also tend to have nontraditional values and attitudes.

They are less likely to be religious and more likely to dismiss advice to remain chaste before marriage. They are more likely to be children of divorce. They are less committed to marriage and, when troubles arise, more open to divorce.

The problem with this theory is that most high-school dropouts in 1960 didn’t cohabit before they married, nor did the less religious nor the more liberal. It simply was not done. Additionally, few of their parents had divorced.

What has changed the culture so dramatically?

The Sexual Revolution. When the birth control pill was introduced, the perceived dangers of premarital sex were lessened and the era of “free love” was ushered in. Premarital sexual activity brought less of a stigma; it actually became a badge of honor and a sign of modernity. Eventually sex without the bonds of marriage became accepted as the norm. The “Playboy Philosophy,” popularized by Hugh Hefner, promoted consensual sex anywhere, anytime, with anyone. Widespread cohabitation is the logical outgrowth of such a societal frame of reference.

2. The Cohabitation Effect
The other, more probable, theory to explain why living together dooms so many marriages is that the experience of cohabiting changes young adults in ways that increase their chances of divorce. The very act of cohabiting, with its casual, impermanent bonding, diminishes respect for commitment, especially the till-death-do-us-part vows of marriage.

As Pamela Smock notes: “Through cohabitation people learn about and come to accept the temporary nature of relationships and in particular that there are alternatives to marriage.” She cites a study showing that living together between the ages of eighteen and twenty-three “significantly alters young men’s and women’s attitudes toward marriage and divorce.” It changes “people’s attitudes in ways that make them more prone to divorce.”

But cohabitation changes even more than people’s perspectives on marriage and divorce. It seems to dramatically affect the way people view and respond to their partners. Dr. Catherine Cohan of Pennsylvania State University explained to Reuters Health what she observed in yet another eye-opening study comparing the marriages of people who had cohabited with those who had not: “Those people who lived together were more negative and less positive when resolving a marital problem and when providing support to their partner.” She found that even those who cohabited for just one month before marriage actually displayed poorer communication and problem-solving skills than those who did not live together.

According to Dr. Cohan’s report, coauthored with Stacey Kleinbaum, in the February 2002 issue of the Journal of Marriage and Family, 60 percent of test subjects who had cohabited before marriage were more verbally aggressive, less supportive of one another, and more hostile than the 40 percent of spouses who had not lived together.

Researchers visited the couples at home, interviewed partners separately, and then videotaped two fi fteen-minute sessions, in the absence of the interviewer, in which the partners sought to solve a problem that had been selected by each from a list that included sex, money, children, housework, career, and religion. The videotapes revealed that couples who had first lived together displayed more negative behavior than those who had not. Husbands who had cohabited, for example, were more likely to attempt to control their wives, while the wives were more verbally aggressive.

Cohan and Kleinbaum concluded that couples who live together before marriage enter the relationship with lower commitment. It takes a higher level of commitment to marry than to cohabit. “The open-ended nature of the relationship may cause them to be less motivated to develop their conflict resolution and support skills.”

The researchers said those who cohabited were not doomed to divorce but did have “poorer communication skills” than those who remained separate until the wedding. Cohan added, “I can say, however, there’s nothing in the research that says living together helps people in the long run.”

People who cohabit seem to lose respect for themselves and for their partner, while those who form a household only after marriage have inherently higher self-respect and respect for their spouse.
Cohabitation is a supercharged engine producing dissatisfied couples and, as a result, more divorces—thus contributing to and sustaining America’s high divorce rate.

From LIVING TOGETHER by Mike McManus and Harriet McManus. Copyright (c) 2008 by Michael J. McManus and Harriet E. McManus. Reprinted by permission of Howard Publishing, a division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Mike McManus is a Duke graduate who was Time's youngest correspondent in 1963. He has been a nationally syndicated columnist since 1977, whose award-winning "Ethics & Religion" column is published weekly. Mike's book Marriage Savers inspired clergy to create Community Marriage Policies that have reduced divorce and cohabitation rates in more than one hundred cities. He and his wife, Harriet, cofounded Marriage Savers, Inc., to help clergy better prepare, enrich, and restore marriages. They have personally mentored fifty-seven couples preparing for marriage.

Harriet McManus married Mike in 1965. She was the first editor of Marriage Savers and Mikes other books and is editor of Mike's columns. Together they have initiated a premarital marriage ministry in their church, Fourth Presbyterian in Bethesda, Maryland, and they pioneered the training of Mentor Couples to administer a premarital inventory. She works full-time for Marriage Savers as a writer, editor, and trainer. She and Mike have three sons and six grandchildren.

Man Tries to Sue God

Suit Against God Thrown Out Over Lack of Address
Oct. 15, 2008 12:00 PM

LINCOLN, Neb. - A judge has thrown out a Nebraska legislator's lawsuit against God, saying the Almighty wasn't properly served due to his unlisted home address.

State Sen. Ernie Chambers filed the lawsuit last year seeking a permanent injunction against God. He said God has made terroristic threats against the senator and his constituents in Omaha, inspired fear and caused "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."

Chambers has said he filed the lawsuit to make the point that everyone should have access to the courts regardless of whether they are rich or poor.

On Tuesday, however, Douglas County District Court Judge Marlon Polk ruled that under state law a plaintiff must have access to the defendant for a lawsuit to move forward.

"Given that this court finds that there can never be service effectuated on the named defendant this action will be dismissed with prejudice," Polk wrote.

Chambers, who graduated from law school but never took the bar exam, thinks he's found a hole in the judge's ruling.

"The court itself acknowledges the existence of God," Chambers said Wednesday. "A consequence of that acknowledgment is a recognition of God's omniscience."

Therefore, Chambers said, "Since God knows everything, God has notice of this lawsuit."
Chambers has 30 days to decide whether to appeal. He said he hasn't decided yet.

Chambers, who has served a record 38 years in the Nebraska Legislature, is not returning next year because of term limits. He skips morning prayers during the legislative session and often criticizes Christians.

North Korea being a lil $#!+

NORTH KOREA

VIENNA, Austria - North Korea moved closer Thursday to relaunching its nuclear arms program, announcing that it wants to reactivate the facility that produced its atomic bomb and banning U.N. inspectors from the site.

The U.S. said the moves did not mean the death of international efforts to persuade the North to recommit to an agreement that offers it diplomatic and economic concessions in exchange for nuclear disarmament.

But North Korea's statement that it was intent on restarting operations of its plutonium-producing reprocessing plant and other facilities at its main nuclear site appeared to be the clearest indication to date that it is not interested in keeping to the deal — at least for now.
The plans of the reclusive communist nation were revealed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The North had already banned IAEA inspectors from the reprocessing plant last month after demanding they remove agency seals from the facility. But the experts continued to have access to the rest of the site until Thursday.

"Since it is preparing to restart the facilities at Yongbyon, the DPRK has informed the IAEA that our monitoring activities would no longer be appropriate," the U.N. nuclear watchdog said, using the formal acronym for North Korea.

It said the North "informed IAEA inspectors that effective immediately access to facilities at Yongbyon would no longer be permitted" and "also stated that it has stopped its (nuclear) disablement work."

The IAEA said its small inspection team would remain on the site until told otherwise by North Korean authorities, and the State Department suggested it does not view North Korea's statement as the end of a six-nation agreement on ending North Korea's atomic program.
"This is a regrettable step, but one that is reversible," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

Still the North Korean reversal compounds the White House's nuclear setbacks with time running out for President Bush, who leaves office early next year.

Washington has been successful in persuading the international community to do nuclear trade with India. In doing so, it has set up lucrative access for U.S. firms looking to provide nuclear technology worth billions of dollars, reversing more than three decades of U.S. policy that has barred the sale of nuclear fuel and technology to a country that has not signed international nonproliferation accords and tested secretly developed nuclear weapons.

But along with the North's resurgent atomic defiance, Iran remains a nuclear thorn it the Bush administration's side as it continues to flout U.N. sanctions and Western pressure to give up uranium enrichment, a potential pathway to the bomb.

Despite the gloomy implications of Pyongyang's moves, however, they could be nothing more than a negotiating ploy — the year needed to start its reprocessing plant could be used to wrest more concessions from the North's interlocutors.

Tensions also rose elsewhere on the Korean peninsula, with the North warning the South against sending naval ships into its waters and threatening warfare as it reportedly shifted an arsenal of missiles to a nearby island for more test launches.

The warning came hours after a South Korean newspaper reported that a U.S. spy satellite detected signs the North had positioned about 10 missiles near the disputed sea border after test-firing two short-range missiles on Tuesday. The Chosun Ilbo report cited an unidentified South Korean official.

Yongbyon, located about 60 miles north of Pyongyang, has three main facilities: a 5-megawatt reactor, a plutonium reprocessing plant and a fuel fabrication complex.

The reactor is the centerpiece of the complex, with the facility stretching more than a mile along the Churyong River, satellite images show.

The reprocessing center to the south of the reactor is capable of extracting weapons-grade plutonium from spent fuel rods. Thousands of them remain in storage but would likely be moved to the reprocessing plant as a next step. South of the reprocessing center, fuel rods are made from natural uranium in the fuel fabrication complex that lies tucked into a bend in the Churyong River.

A second reactor with the potential to produce much higher quantities of plutonium has not been completed.

North Korea was to dismantle the Yongbyon nuclear complex in return for diplomatic concessions and energy aid equivalent to 1 million tons of oil under the deal with the U.S., South Korea, China, Russia and Japan.

But the accord hit a snag in mid-August when the U.S. refused to remove North Korea from its list of states that sponsor terrorism until the North accepts a plan for verifying a list of nuclear assets that the communist regime submitted to its negotiating partners.

U.S. chief nuclear negotiator Christopher Hill recently returned to Washington from a trip to North Korea meant to jump-start the talks, but the State Department has declined to provide details of his meetings.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said a nuclear disarmament verification protocol remained essential to taking North Korea off the terrorism list.

She added, however: "If we can get a verification protocol that we are satisfied with, then we would be able to fulfill our side of the bargain."

John Bolton, who has served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and U.S. undersecretary of state in charge of the North Korean nuclear dossier, described the North's latest move as "just another piece of evidence that the diplomatic route has failed."

Bolton, a critic of what he considers U.S. leniency with the regime, told The Associated Press that "it would be inconceivable to remove North Korea from the terrorism list now, if in fact they have gone further and expelled IAEA inspectors."

For the U.S., the North Korean nuclear reversal is the second major setback this decade — Yongbyon was under IAEA seal in December 2002 when Pyongyang ordered U.N. inspectors out of the country and restarted its atomic activities, unraveling a deal committing the U.S. to help the North build a peaceful nuclear program.

North Korea quit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in January 2003. Then on Oct. 9, 2006, it set off an underground test explosion of a nuclear weapon. There was widespread international condemnation, but the U.S. also softened its position and the six-nation deal soon followed.
Scientists began disabling the Yongbyon reactor a year ago, and in June the North blew up its cooling tower in a dramatic show of commitment to the pact.

Eight of the 11 steps needed to disable the reactor had been completed by July, North Korean officials said.

Associated Press writers Jean H. Lee in Seoul, South Korea, and Deb Riechmann in Washington contributed to this report.

File photo shows a missile unit of the Korean People's Army during a military parade in Pyongyang. North Korea is preparing up to 10 more short-range missiles for a mass test-launch, South Korean news reports said Thursday, two days after the North fired at least one missile into the sea.

North Korea's nuclear reactor in Yongbyon. The UN atomic watchdog says its inspectors have been barred from North Korea's facilities at Yongbyon.

This Aug. 13, 2002 file photo is a satellite image provided by Space Imaging Asia of the Yongbyon Nuclear Center, located north of Pyongyang, North Korea. North Korea announced Thursday Oct. 6, 2008 that it is preparing to restart the facility that produced its atomic bomb, clearly indicating that it plans to completely pull out of an international deal to end its nuclear program. North Korea told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it was stopping the process of disabling its main nuclear site and barring international inspectors from the Yongbyon facility, the agency said.

Own The Dallas Cowboys Endzone!

Own the Endzone to God's Favorite Team

Yup, the Dallas Cowboys.

Well, just when you thought you've seen it all, now it is possible to actually buy the Dallas Cowboy endzone. To honor battles won and heroes lost over 38 glorious years, you can put 530 square yards of sporting history into your own backyard. I would actually consider this because I too love the Cowboys. Only, the endzone costs $500,000! (Installation not included)

The exclusive packaged deal: An entire Cowboys Texas Stadium end zone, the VIP treatment for the last regular season Cowboys game in Texas Stadium, also your crew gets pre-game photos in your zone with Jerry Jones, a luxury suite for the game, and a once-in-a-lifetime post-game tailgate party on your soon-to be new backyard (with the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders, no less).

Yes, that's right: a tailgate party on your new backyard with the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders...

freakin' sweet.

Video Games Controlled by Telekinesis

New Video Game Literally A Mind Game

MAKUHARI, Japan (AFP) - Willpower is set to replace fast fingers in a new video game in which players move characters through a headset that monitors their brain waves.

California-based NeuroSky Inc. showed off the new headset -- named Mindset -- at the Tokyo Game Show, the industry's biggest exhibition which opened near the Japanese capital Thursday.
The Mindset monitors whether the player is focused or relaxed and accordingly moves the character on a personal computer.

"We brought this to the game show as a new interface, a new platform for game creators," NeuroSky managing director Kikuo Ito told AFP.

Children's games using the system will hit the US market next year, Ito said.
"We are exploring the use of brain waves in the game industry because games are fun and so close to people," he said.

"Once people get used to the idea of using brain waves for various applications, I hope we will see various products using this technology," he said.

In distance learning courses, for example, teachers could monitor whether students were attentive, Ito said.

Train drivers and motorists could use it to judge their stress levels and alertness, Ito added.
Japan's Keio University put similar technology to use this year to let a paralysed man take a virtual stroll on the popular Second Life website, with the machine reading what he wanted to do with his immobile legs.

NeuroSky said the Mindset could help people with other types of disabilities.

"For people with difficulty speaking, this can be a tool for communication," Ito said.
Ito was hopeful that the technology would eventually go on sale outside the United States. Prices have not been announced.

Reviews by YOU for "Fireproof"

What the people say about FIREPROOF:

Serious Review
by sorrowchaser

This film was actually a lot better than I thought it would be. I took my husband with me (dragging him) and even he came out saying it was good.
First off, the bad news. Yes some of the acting is cheesy. Yes the budget was low and it showed up in a few places. The dialogue was stiff which made the actors look even more awkward. The beginning went by a little too fast, and Caleb's agreement to do the dare was not quite convincing.
But once you get over that hump, the story picks up and you get sucked in. The writers worked hard to give us unexpected twists, lots of comedy relief, and suspense as to whether it will work. Every time you think Caleb is making progress, you hold your breath to see how Catherine will respond. Her friends are on the sidelines encouraging her to go on with divorce even as Caleb tries desperately to get her attention. As crazy as it sounds, you really start to worry that they won't stay together.
Another positive point is that the film is more than just the marriage between Caleb and Catherine. Lots of side stories intertwine to give it all texture. Every detail, from the doctor to the gossipy nurses to the fire station boys, add up to a whole picture that make the characters feel more like three dimensional people. The train scene and the burning house added a perfect amount of excitement.But do be mindful that it *is* a Christian film. The gospel is included through Caleb's trust in his dad and plays a big part in his conversion back to loving Catherine.
Overall, it held my attention for the whole two hours and jerked at my heart strings several times. Their problems were realistic and believable, and most importantly, the problems weren't solved with a snap of a finger. Good, compelling, sympathetic story that found clever ways to keep the suspense. Well done.




Hallelujah!
by lilbit_aj

Before you go, anticipate fairly bad acting (although NOT as bad as in FACING THE GIANTS). Before you go, anticipate evangelism of the Christian variety. And before you go, prepare your heart to hear God's plan.
This movie is rife with wisdom and, surprisingly, HUMOR! There are lots of funny moments in the film, which I was not anticipating! Big kudos to every single person who put this film together, who volunteered his or her time, who sacrificed, gave, and dedicated him or herself to the Lord's message.
If your marriage is hurting and/or you look at the person you married and think, "Good gracious! What was I thinking?" I beg you to go see the film.
If you are engaged, go!
If you are divorced, go!
If you ever think you will get married some day, go!
If you want to support the Christian message and tell Hollywood not to forget Christians, go!
Go!



Don't Beleive the Haters
by thejustinthomas

Despite some close-minded individuals touting this movie as "Christian Propaganda", this is a good, real movie. Was it produced by Christians? Yes. Does it contain a Christian message? Yes. Is the acting mediocre? Yes. Be that as it may, the film is "real." I watched my own parents go through nearly the same situation and it wasn't until my dad became a Christian and started loving my mom that their marriage became strong and affectionate again. Like the characters in the movie, my parents were on the brink. This movie spoke to me what I had already experienced. Don't let those who preach "tolerance" but call this movie "propaganda", especially without having seen it, persuade you to not see this. It is a movie with morals, so naturally Jesus-haters are going to bash it.



Great Movie
by coachjulie2006

It's important to note that this is obviously a low budget film. The actual film transfer is terrible. I haven't seen so much debris and burn holes on a film since the 1990's. The sound quality is pretty awful, too. Despite all that, the movie is astounding. It speaks wonders about the effort that marriage takes and the things that can destroy it. A definite must-see for all married couples. And just like Facing the Giants, it is an emotional roller-coaster! They found better actors as well. The humor was great, too! Enjoy!



No Oscar but Wothy of an A
by jamesphoyt@att.net

Listen, I hope you understand that the motivation behind a movie like this was not to win an Oscar, but to win your heart. This film will leave you wanting to mend broken relationships or strengthen the one you currently have.
I gave it an "A" because this story simply needs to be heard more often. Too many reckless relationships being promoted in Hollywood and not enough of the values from the Greatest Generation. This film is about hard work, deep love, and commitment to a covenant...even when it starts to crumble.
Promote it within your church. And fill the theaters. Lets send a message to a culture that disrespects the value of marriage...

Going Solo In The USA
by Sperling's BestPlaces

Last year, the New York Times published the results of its census analysis stating that 51% of U.S. women live without a spouse. However, Sperling's BestPlaces discovered this might not be the whole story.

"The Times came to some insightful conclusions with their analysis," said Bert Sperling, lead researcher for Sperling's BestPlaces. "We made some different assumptions to more closely reflect our national lifestyle where fifteen year-old girls aren't commonly expected to get married."

The New York Times used, at that time, the latest demographics from the Census Bureau, including women above age fourteen who were unmarried or separated. Indeed, according to a University of Texas survey, the average age of women at their first marriage is 26.

Sperling's firm looked at similar Census data, but restricted its analysis to single, widowed, and divorced women age 25-64. Without this cap on the age range, places with higher concentrations of elderly people would show a misleading number of single women.

Sperling's conclusion is significantly different than the New York Times. In the 379 metro areas nationwide, 34% of women 25-64 are single.

Despite all the attention to this new milestone for single women, the difference between the number of single men and women is not as great as one might think. Nationally, 32% of men are single.

Where do the lonely hearts live?
"As interesting as the nation as a whole is trending," Sperling said, "we want to see which places had the greatest percentage of single men and women."

Sperling's firm broke down the data by metro area, revealing interesting patterns on where singles live.

San Francisco seems to attract single people like a good pickup line, if there is such a thing. Compared to every other metro area in the U.S., the San Francisco region, which includes areas south like San Mateo and Redwood City, has the highest percentage of single people.

Detroit, with 43% singles, is second only to San Francisco. New York, and Boston round out the top four.

Most southern cities are not flush with single people. Those cities in southern states that have more singles are homes to colleges, where students might choose to remain after graduation, or are known for their nightlife. New Orleans, Austin, and a handful of Florida cities all have more singles than the national average.

"There has to be a lot going on for singles," said David Evans in a phone interview with BestPlaces. Evans is an online dating researcher based in Boston, a city that is 39% single. Evans said Boston has the key factors for single living. "It's a college town, it has nightlife, culture, and lots of jobs."

Whether by choice or circumstance, many are living in some of the biggest cities, surrounded by millions, and still find themselves alone.

The Top Ten "Solo Cities:" (Percent)
1 San Francisco, CA 44.7
2 Detroit, MI 44
3 New York, NY 39.8
4 Boston, MA 39.2
5 New Orleans, LA 39.1
6 Los Angeles, CA 37.7
7 Fort Lauderdale, FL 37.2
8 Las Vegas, NV 37
9 Miami, FL 36.9
10 Albuquerque, NM 36.8

Where are the couples?
People tend couple up more in the smaller towns, though there are big city outliers like Edison, NJ, and Nassau-Suffolk metro area in New York. Many places that view themselves as traditional boast marriage rates above the national average.

A few college cities buck the trend of having more singles. North Carolina cities, Raleigh and Charlotte--each home to a university with more than 20,000 students--are in the bottom 25% by percentage of singles.

Logan, UT, and Provo, UT, both have fewer than 20% singles, the lowest in the country. Texas cities McAllen and Laredo have similarly low numbers of single people.

Top Ten Least Single Cities (Percent Single)
1 McAllen, TX 23
2 Lake County, IL 25.1
3 Nassau, NY 26.9
4 Edison, NJ 28
5 Poughkeepsie, NY 28
6 Bakersfield, CA 28.3
7 El Paso, TX 28.4
8 Allentown, PA-NJ 28.4
9 Salt Lake City, UT 28.5
10 Oxnard, CA 28.5

What about that gender gap?
Bars and clubs that promote the ubiquitous "Ladies Night" might be surprised to find their city's gender gap favors the men. Since the U.S. has about 6% more single women than single men, many cities tip toward more women.

Evans said many dating events take care of any imbalance by "stocking the pond," applying a quota so the number of participants of each sex are equal.

Still, where there is an imbalance, the dating life is easier on one gender. Online dating companies are cluing into the gender gap. "All the sites are getting to where the ads are different in geographic areas," Evans said.

When advertising on TV, the radio, or the Internet, personals websites can alter the ads based on whether the city is likely to have a dearth of one gender. An effect of this, Evans said, is that people perceive that there are plenty of fish in the sea.

Top 10 Gender-imbalanced Cities:
1 McAllen, TX 28% more women
2 El Paso, TX 27% more women
3 Memphis, TN 17% more women
4 Bethesda, MD 17% more women
5 San Jose, CA 17% more men
6 Birmingham, AL 16% more women
7 New York, NY 16% more women
8 Baltimore, MD 16% more women
9 Little Rock, AR 16% more women
10 Columbia, SC 15% more women

A gender gap is more common than a perfect balance. Despite that, some places manage to have remarkably similar numbers of men and women, as if someone is stocking the pond of the entire city.

Top 10 Equality Cities:
1 Warren, MI slightly more men
2 Minneapolis, MN slightly more women
3 Tacoma, WA slightly more men
4 Orlando, FL slightly more men
5 Oxnard, CA slightly more men
6 Grand Rapids, MI 1% more men
7 Los Angeles, CA 2% more women
8 Allentown, PA 2% more women
9 Fort Worth, TX 2.5% more women
10 Santa Ana, CA 2.5% more men