Thursday, March 14, 2013

Drive Time




Average Commute Times 

What Places Have the Worst Commutes?

Average commute time by ZIP code.

 The average travel time to work in the United States is 25.4 minutes, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Move around the map or enter your town or zip code to find commute times for your area.




 Click on the link below to find out what the average commute is where you are.
 <iframe src="http://project.wnyc.org/commute-times-us/embed.html?layer=0#4.00/38.18/-95.43" height="690" width="100%" scrolling="no" frameborder="0"></iframe>


If Slate’s Farhad Manjoo can’t persuade Marissa Mayer to allow Yahoo workers to work at home, perhaps the map above can. Created by WNYC’s John Keefe and based on data from the American Community Survey, it shows average commute times by ZIP code. In many places, commuters travel for nearly an hour to get to work. Hidden in the averages are the 600,000 “megacommuters” who travel more than 90 minutes to work.
The worst ZIPs can often be found in metropolitan areas with the worst traffic congestion, such as Washington, Los Angeles, and New York. However, traffic congestion doesn’t explain it all. People who rely on public transit have longer commutes on average than those who drive, according to census data.
Long commutes are a well-documented source of stress and unhappiness, not to mention pollution. The average one-way daily commute in the U.S. is about 26 minutes.

Slate is published by The Slate Group, a Division of the Washington Post Company
All contents © 2013 The Slate Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Like the Phoenix rising from the ashes...We have a new Pope




Appearing on the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica a short time later, the new pope greeted a vast crowd gathered below in St. Peter’s Square with salutations in Italian and led a prayer for his predecessor, Benedict XVI.


"Holy Smoke", the Vatican announces to the world that a new Pope has been elected.

VATICAN CITY (AP) -- Cardinals elected a new pope to lead the world's 1.2 billion Catholics on Wednesday, overcoming deep divisions to select the 266th pontiff in a remarkably fast conclave.
Tens of thousands of people who braved cold rain to watch the smokestack atop the Sistine Chapel jumped in joy when white smoke poured out, many shouting "Habemus Papam!" or "We have a pope!" - as the bells of St. Peter's Basilica and churches across Rome pealed.
The pope, whose identity isn't yet known, is due to emerge from the loggia overlooking St. Peter's Square to deliver his first words as the bishop of Rome. The lag time was giving Romans plenty of time to get to St. Peter's and a steady stream of pilgrims and tourists were making their way.
Chants of `'Long live the pope!" rose from the throngs of faithful, many with tears in their eyes. Crowds went wild as the Vatican appeared on the square, blaring music, followed by Swiss Guards in silver helmets and full regalia. At least 50,000 people jammed into the square.
"I can't explain how happy I am right down," said Ben Canete, a 32-year-old Filipino, jumping up and down in excitement.
Elected on the fifth ballot, the pope was chosen in one of the fastest conclaves in years, remarkable given there was no clear front-runner going into the vote and that the church had been in turmoil following the upheaval unleashed by Pope Benedict XVI's surprise resignation.
A winner must receive 77 votes, or two-thirds of the 115, to be named pope.
For comparison's sake, Benedict was elected on the fourth ballot in 2005 - but he was the clear front-runner going into the vote. Pope John Paul II was elected on the eighth ballot in 1978 to become the first non-Italian pope in 455 years.
The conclave played out against the backdrop of the first papal resignation in 600 years and revelations of mismanagement, petty bickering, infighting and corruption in the Holy See bureaucracy. Those revelations, exposed by the leaks of papal documents last year, had divided the College of Cardinals into camps seeking a radical reform of the Holy See's governance and those defending the status quo.
The names mentioned most often as "papabile" - a cardinal who has the stuff of a pope - included Cardinal Angelo Scola, the archbishop of Milan, an intellect in the vein of Benedict but with a more outgoing personality, and Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the Canadian head of the Vatican's important bishops' office who is also scholarly but reserved like Benedict.
Brazilian Cardinal Odilo Scherer is liked by the Vatican bureaucracy but not by all of his countrymen. And Cardinal Peter Erdo of Hungary has the backing of European cardinals who have twice elected him as head of the European bishops' conference.
On the more pastoral side is Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston, the favorite of the Italian press, and Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the back-slapping, outgoing archbishop of New York who has admitted himself that his Italian is pretty bad - a drawback for a job that is conducted almost exclusively in the language.
The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi said it was a "good hypothesis" that the pope would be installed next Tuesday, on the feast of St. Joseph, patron saint of the universal church. The installation Mass is attended by heads of state from around the world, requiring at least a few days' notice.
Benedict would not attend, he said.
Thousands of people braved a chilly rain on Wednesday morning to watch the 6-foot- (2-meter-) high copper chimney on the chapel roof for the smoke signals telling them whether the cardinals had settled on a choice. Nuns recited the rosary, while children splashed in puddles.
Unlike the confusion that reigned during the 2005 conclave, the smoke this time around was clear: black during the first two sets of smoke signals, and then clearly white on Wednesday night - thanks to special smoke flares akin to those used in soccer matches or protests that were lit in the chapel ovens to accompany the smoke from the burned ballot papers.
The Vatican on Wednesday divulged the secret recipe used: potassium perchlorate, anthracene, which is a derivative of coal tar, and sulfur for the black smoke; potassium chlorate, lactose and a pine resin for the white smoke.
The chemicals were contained in five units of a cartridge that is placed inside the stove of the Sistine Chapel. When activated, the five blocks ignite one after another for about a minute apiece, creating the steady stream of smoke that accompanies the natural smoke from the burned ballot papers.
Despite the great plumes of smoke that poured out of the chimney, neither the Sistine frescoes nor the cardinals inside the chapel suffered any smoke damage, Lombardi said.


© 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Nope!



VATICAN CITY — Black smoke rose above the Sistine Chapel on Tuesday, signaling that 115 Roman Catholic cardinals failed to agree on a new pope during the first day of the papal conclave.
The "princes of the church" began deliberating inside the Vatican after swearing an oath of secrecy and entering the papal conclave at about 5 p.m. local time (12 p.m. ET).
The smoke was created by the burning of ballot papers used by the cardinals in their deciding vote, with chemical cartridges being added to ensure the smoke did not appear to be white — the sign that a decision has been reached. It means the conclave will reconvene on Wednesday morning.

Monday, March 4, 2013

We are offically "Artists"

Well, art is subjective!  One man's treasure is one others piece of junk.

So, Heidi and I have been involved in clay projects for these past few months here in Arizona.  Hers has been free hand building and mosaic clay work; mine has been stoneware clay sculpture.  Just so you know, it is very therapeutic, if you have never done anything like this before.  I've always considered myself somewhat of a non-artist, as I nearly failed all the college courses I took as electives to fill the necessary quota of credit hours.  But, both of us have come out of our "artistic shell" and are creating some really neat pieces.

This past weekend we participated in a juried show (meaning the pieces were judged in various categories) and we received ribbons for 2nd and 3rd places and I thought that I would share them here on the Westboundkid with all of you.

Brinkley, is a Boston Terrier, and won a red ribbon.  He captures the character of my in-laws real dog, and is now in their living room for all visitors to be welcomed at the front door, by the real Brinkley and the sculpture.

 Heidi, won a white ribbon for her rendition of our yellow Labrador Retriever, Abby.  The piece is titled, "My Abby" and has a 3 dimensional quality to it.  The nose, ears and neck are not flat the rest of the clay mosaic.  It is truly, "one of a kind" art piece.  As Brinkley greets people at the front door of Jack & Vivian's house, My Abby will greet our visitors at our house.

I did have another piece submitted in the Novice Sculpture category and that was a bust of Abby.  It is a good likeness, but in retrospect, I should have entered in mixed media or some other section.  My Bad!
She too is now in a corner of our living room, guarding her territory.


All-in-all, it was a very nice weekend and we enjoyed being a part of it. 

Monday, February 18, 2013

12 Jobs WAY Worse Than Yours

 If you've been in the workforce for a while, you may know full well the horrors of "cooking" fast food, answering phones, and doing data entry. Those jobs may be bad, but the 12 jobs in this photo gallery make them seem like being the CEO of Happy Co. If Monday is getting you down, be sure to share this gallery of the worst jobs in the world. Your co-workers will thank you.

Catching Elephant Dung

Insane Heights Painter

Crocodile Feeder

Honeymoon Horse Wrangler

Indoor / Outdoor Window Washer

Mascot

Crocodile Dentist

Demolition Derby Photographer

Human Ladder

Port-a-Potty Cleaner

Underarm Smeller

+

Rhino Inspector

Enough said; right?
Happy Moan-day, everybody!

Monday, December 3, 2012

Drink in the Driveway


Our 3rd annual Holiday "Drink in the Driveway" came off in grand style last Saturday afternoon.  For 2 hours, from 4 to 6 PM, the Dvorak's Driveway in Sun City Arizona turns into the place to be.  Cocktails, food and fun is had by all. 

This year brought a rather creative twist.  Snow!  That's right, I said, "Snow!"  A nice pile of ice cold, clean, bright, white snow.  Suitable for snowball throwing, as witnessed by the picture, as I was attempting to get a picture of the crowd.  I managed to snap the picture of the incoming snowball and barely cleared the line of trajectory to avoid being hit.

The pile of snow was a novel idea, and many of our guests, young at heart, were thrilled to touch it and play in the snow.

The last of the snow disappeared early Monday morning.  But what a fun party and a great way to get together with our friends and neighbors.

Happy Holidays!

Thursday, November 29, 2012

5 Reasons You're Lucky You Didn't Have Winning Lottery Numbers


5 Reasons You're Lucky You Didn't Have Winning Powerball Numbers
Nov. 29, 2012

So you didn't have the winning Powerball numbers and aren't one of the lottery winners to win the more-than-half-billion-dollar jackpot. That's OK.
First, you are not alone. If you bought a ticket, you are one of the millions of losers in the country. In fact, leading up to the drawing on Wednesday night, lottery officials said they were selling 131,000 tickets a minute.
If you didn't buy into the frenzy of "lotto fever" because you forgot to buy a ticket or practiced self-control, you may be feeling pretty good when comparing yourself to co-workers who threw away $20 on losing tickets. The odds of winning the jackpot were more than one in 175.2 million anyway.
Media stories are quick to mention the tremendous tragedies that previous lottery winners have faced, with some observers calling winners "cursed." Jack Whitaker, winner of a $315-million Powerball jackpot in 2002, said he wished he never won after his teenage granddaughter became addicted to drugs and then was found dead in 2007 of what authorities ruled as an overdose. His daughter died in 2009 in another apparent overdose.
"Since I won the lottery, I think there is no control for greed," he told ABC News' "20/20". "I think if you have something, there's always someone else that wants it. I wish I'd torn that ticket up."
If you are still feeling regret for not waking up this morning to billions of dollars through no merit of your own, here are five other reasons why it may be good you didn't win the lottery:
Lotto Winners May Be More Likely to File for Bankruptcy
The late hip-hop artist Notorious B.I.G. said it best with his rap single, "Mo Money Mo Problems."
A group of economists conducted research about whether that was true. Scott Hankins of the University of Kentucky, Mark Hoekstra of the University of Pittsburgh and Paige Marta Skiba of Vanderbilt University studied people who won more than $600 from the Florida Lottery between 1993 and 2002.
Their paper, "The Ticket to Easy Street? The Financial Consequences of Winning the Lottery," was published in October 2009.
Although they found recipients of $50,000 to $150,000 were 50 percent less likely to file for bankruptcy in the two years after winning relative to small winners, "they are equally more likely to file three to five years afterward."
Just because you win money does not mean you will be able to manage or hang on to it for very long.
"Bankruptcy records indicate that even though the median winner of a large cash prize could have paid off all of his unsecured debt or increased equity in new or existing assets, he chose not to do either," the researchers found.
Some people choose to maintain their normal lives even after hitting the jackpot.
Bruce Sacerdote, economics professor at Dartmouth College, studied the effects of lottery winnings from Massachusetts winners in the 1980s. He found that several years after winning big prizes, about 40 percent of winners were still working for various reasons.
For each $100,000 won per year, people reduced labor market earnings by $11,000 and people saved about 16 percent of their gross winnings, on average.
Winning the Jackpot Won't Make You Happier ...
Money and happiness is a favorite topic for researchers, and the rare phenomenon of an unexpected cash windfall is just as enticing. Sacerdote noted that happiness from a jackpot is likely a temporary high.
"You see a modest bump in happiness and people get used to whatever their income is," Sacerdote said. "My suspicion, which is based on more general data on income and happiness, is you might not see a permanent bump."
Another group of economists from University of California, Santa Barbara, University of Amsterdam and Tilburg University in the Netherlands studied winners of the Nationale Postcode Loterij (PCL), the second largest national lottery in the Netherlands.
They found that winning the PCL, which amounts to about 8 months of income for an average household, "has no detectable effects on a household's reported happiness," as described in their paper, "The Own and Social Effects of an Unexpected Income Shock: Evidence from the Dutch Postcode Lottery."
The authors noted happiness is linked to long-term personal income rather than short-term fluctuations and that may be because "long-term income differences are more likely to be seen as 'earned' and thus legitimate."
In the Journal of Health Economics, authors Jonathan Gardner and Andrew J. Oswald studied a group of British people who received between £1000 and £200,000, or about $1,600 to $320,760 with current exchange rates. In the year a prize is won, they found that "mental stress goes up, while in subsequent years lottery winners show less stress than non-winners." Of course, the absence of mental stress and happiness are not the same thing, they noted in the paper, "Money and Mental Wellbeing: A Longitudinal Study of Medium-Sized Lottery Wins."
You Might Be Better Off Winning a Smaller Prize Anyway
In the "Money and Mental Wellbeing" study, the authors honed down on medium-sized lottery winners. They analyzed 137 British winners of between £1,000 and approximately £120,000 in 1998 pounds sterling, about $1,600 to $192,456 with current exchange rates. The winners were compared to people who did not win and others with smaller prizes. They found "the medium-size winners go on to have significantly better psychological health."
But, the authors cautioned, the sample size was "fairly small, so it is sensible to be cautious in interpretation."
Keeping Up With the Joneses: You're Not Perpetuating a Rat-Race in Your Neighborhood
In the study of Dutch lottery winners, the researchers found that a winner's neighbors' consumption patterns changed. In particular, the study noted statistically significant increases on car consumption and exterior home renovations, "both of which are likely to be easily, and repeatedly, visible to a household's neighbors."
People who did not participate in the lottery but lived within a winner's postal code were more likely to acquire a new car in the six months after the lottery win than non-participants living in neighborhoods without a winner. The same was true for major exterior home renovations in six months after the lottery.
You May Be Bringing Everyone Else's Hopes Down
Knowing a lottery winner may encourage some people to get into the habit of purchasing tickets. It could also turn off others who think the chances of two people in the same community winning a ticket may be slim.
"For most people, purchasing a ticket and fantasizing about what life will be like once you've won is the most pleasant part of the lottery experience," said Scott Bea, a clinical psychologist with the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, previously told ABC News. "You could probably flush the same amount of money down the toilet and get much the same result -- but then you wouldn't have the dream."
The Dutch study found that people who did not participate in the lottery but are surrounded by households who won the lottery six months ago are less likely to play than nonparticipants who are not surrounded by winners.
The study added that although lottery winnings do not make households happier, they don't make neighboring households less happy.



©2012 ABC News – Good Morning America


5 Reasons You're Lucky You Didn't Have Winning Lottery Numbers - ABC News

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Why I Was Wrong


Why I Was Wrong
By Dick Morris on November 7, 2012
 
I’ve got egg on my face. I predicted a Romney landslide and, instead, we ended up with an Obama squeaker.

The key reason for my bum prediction is that I mistakenly believed that the 2008 surge in black, Latino, and young voter turnout would recede in 2012 to “normal” levels. Didn’t happen. These high levels of minority and young voter participation are here to stay. And, with them, a permanent reshaping of our nation’s politics.

In 2012, 13% of the vote was cast by blacks. In 04, it was 11%. This year, 10% was Latino. In ’04 it was 8%. This time, 19% was cast by voters under 30 years of age. In ’04 it was 17%. Taken together, these results swelled the ranks of Obama’s three-tiered base by five to six points, accounting fully for his victory.

I derided the media polls for their assumption of what did, in fact happen: That blacks, Latinos, and young people would show up in the same numbers as they had in 2008. I was wrong. They did.
But the more proximate cause of my error was that I did not take full account of the impact of hurricane Sandy and of Governor Chris Christie’s bipartisan march through New Jersey arm in arm with President Obama. Not to mention Christe’s fawning promotion of Obama’s presidential leadership.

It made all the difference.

A key element of Romney’s appeal, particularly after the first debate, was his ability to govern with Democrats in Massachusetts. Obama’s one-party strident approach, so much the opposite of what he pledged in his first national speech in 2004, had turned voters off. But by working seamlessly with an acerbic Republican Governor like Christie, Obama was able to blunt Romney’s advantage in this crucial area.

Sandy, in retrospect, stopped Romney’s post-debate momentum. She was, indeed, the October Surprise. She also stopped the swelling concern over the murders in Benghazi and let Obama get away with his cover-up in which he pretended that a terrorist attack was, in fact, just a spontaneous demonstration gone awry.

Obama is the first president in modern times to win re-election by a smaller margin than that by which he was elected in the first place. McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton all increased their re-election vote share significantly. Obama’s dropped from a 7 point margin over McCain to a 1 point margin over Romney.

That he could get re-elected despite his dismal record is a tribute to his brilliant campaign staff and the shifting demographics of America. This is not your father’s United States and the Republican tilt toward white middle aged and older voters is ghettoizing the party so that even bad economic times are not enough to sway the election.  By the time you finish with the various demographic groups the Democrats win, you almost have a majority in their corner. Count them: Blacks cast 13% of the vote and Obama won them 12-1. Latinos cast 10% and Obama carried them by 7-3. Under 30 voters cast 19% of the vote and Obama swept them by 12-7. Single white women cast 18% of the total vote and Obama won them by 12-6. There is some overlap among these groups, of course, but without allowing for any, Obama won 43-17 before the first married white woman or man over 30 cast their vote. (Lets guess that if we eliminate duplication, the Obama margin would be 35-13) Having conceded these votes, Romney would have had to win over two-thirds of the rest of the vote to win. He almost did. But not quite.

If Romney couldn’t manage this trick against Obama in the current economy, no Republican could.

But that doesn’t mean we just give up. Obama barely won this election and we still have a Republican House of Representatives. We still have the ability – and more important, the responsibility – to fight to keep this great country as we know it and love it.

We must stop Obama’s socialist agenda. That’s our job for the next four years. We cannot allow Obama to magnify his narrow victory into a mandate for larger government, bigger spending, and less freedom.
This is not a call for gridlock. If Obama moves to the center and proposes moderate measures, we should support them. But that’s unlikely.

So we have our work cut out for us.

Copyright © 2012 DickMorris.com
Why I Was Wrong

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

5 ways to spot a great leader


Life Health Pro Publications
October 24, 2012


Exactly what is it that sets apart great leaders from poor ones? Are there certain characteristics that make the difference in a leader’s effectiveness? According to Highland Consulting Group CEO Roxi Hewertson, who specializes in leadership development, there are. “Your attitudes and behaviors…are the biggest differentiators between great leaders and failing leaders.”
Here are the five behaviors and attitudes that distinguish great leaders from poor ones:
 Great leaders
  1. Understand their own emotions. Emotional self-awareness is essential for great leadership. Great leaders know how to manage themselves and others in times of crisis and conflict.
  2. Know their limits. The best leaders understand they can’t know and do everything. Instead, they leverage the skills they are good at and surround themselves with staff who posses complementary skills.
  3. Have strong self-worth. Confidence is a product of high self-worth, while arrogance comes from fear or a sense of entitlement. The best leaders continuously test themselves, stretching, growing and learning.
  4. Think positive. Great leaders view the world through the lens of abundance as opposed to scarcity, focusing on solutions, new ideas and silver linings. They may change course, but they never give up.
  5. Value the greater good. Because of their strong confidence and sense of self-worth, great leaders have low ego needs and can therefore work for something greater than themselves. Their motto is “win/win or no deal.” Poor leaders
  1. Dismiss others. Poor leaders don’t pick up on other people’s signals, showing a fundamental lack of empathy. They drive away staff members, who feel they are not trusted, heard, understood or respected.
  2. Miss important cues. These leaders don’t understand the intricacies of organizational norms, hierarchies and politics. Often, they are leaders in name only.
  3. Blame others. Poor leaders need to make someone wrong in order to feel right. You’ll rarely hear these leaders talk about how they plan to learn and grow from their mistakes.
  4. Avoid conflict. Poor leaders fail to provide constructive criticism and attempt to dodge difficult work relationships. No team can be function well without the ability to resolve conflict.
  5. Isolate themselves and their teams. These leaders are lone wolves who think only they or their teams are capable of doing a job. They believe that they are in it alone, and that no one understands them.
As Hewertson says, “Improving one’s emotional intelligence is a life-long journey—one that great leaders relish.”

Visit the article online by clicking this link.  5 ways to spot a great leader | LifeHealthPro

LifeHealthPro.com is the vital online destination for life & health insurance advisors, designed to provide them with the essential elements they need to run their practice and increase their bottom line including breaking news, market trends, practice tips and more.
© 2012 LifeHealthPro. A Summit Business Media publication. All Rights Reserved.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Crowley skews hard for Obama in disastrous presidential debate




HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. — Another debate, another debacle for America’s media.
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and and President Barack Obama answer a question during the second presidential debate at Hofstra University, Tuesday, Oct. 16, 2012, in Hempstead, N.Y. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

In the runup to the second presidential debate, CNN’s Candy Crowley declared that she would not just be a “fly on the wall” as she played the tiny role of moderator, that she would step in whenever she chose to say, “Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?”

And boy did she, cutting off Republican Mitt Romney repeatedly and often throwing the floor to President Obama with an open “let me give the president a chance here.”


More, she alone decided the topics for the debate, picking questions from the 80 so-called “undecided” voters chosen by the Gallup polling organization. Her selections were tailor-made for Mr. Obama — Mitt Romney’s tax plan, women’s rights and contraception, outsourcing, immigration, the Libya debacle (which gave Mr. Obama to finally say that the buck stops with him, not, as Hillary Clinton said, with her).

She even chose this question, directed to both men: “I do attribute much of America’s economic and international problems to the failings and missteps of the Bush administration. Since both of you are Republicans, I fear the return to the policies of those years should you win this election. What is the biggest difference between you and George W. Bush, and how do you differentiate yourself from George W. Bush?”

Ms. Crowley, who called Mr. Romney’s selection of Rep. Paul Ryan as running mate a “ticket death wish,” asserted her unilateral power at the outset, telling the audience before the cameras went on that she planned to “give the debate direction and ensure the candidates give answers to the questions.”

After both candidates answered Question One, she blurted: “Let me get a more immediate answer” — whatever that means. But when Mr. Romney sought to correct falsehoods told by the president, she cut him off: “We have all these folks here.” In the end, Mr. Obama would get 9 percent more time.

At Question Two, Mr. Obama, asked by Mr. Romney how much he had cut federal oil permits, took over the floor — with Ms. Crowley’s silent approval. “Here’s what happened,” he said as he filibustered for a full minute. Mr. Romney sought to get the last word — as the president had the question before — but the moderator shut him down: “It’ doesn’t quite work like that.”

When Mr. Romney sought to counter Mr. Obama’s assertion after Question Three, Ms. Crowley again cut him off: “Before we get into a vast array….” she said before asking a completely different question.
The next question was pure Obama — workplace inequality (the president mention at every stop his Lily Ledbetter legislation). But the query gave him the platform to demand Americans pay for contraception for all women, saying the governor “feels comfortable having politicians in Washington decide the health care choices that women are making.”

For the record, Mr. Obama spoke for two minutes, then Mr. Romney, then Mr. Obama again. Ms. Crowley then rushed into the next question.

When the immigration question came up, both candidates gave their answers. Then the moderator once again butted in, ordering Mr. Romney to “speak to the idea of self-deportation.”

By then, Mr. Romney had had enough, and talked over her demands. “No, let — let — let me go back and speak to the points the president made and — and — and let’s get them correct.”

At the next question, the moderator lost all control. “Candy,” Mr. Obama said. “Hold on.” “Mr. President,” the governor said, “I’m still speaking.” They mixed it up for a bit, then Ms. Crowley said: “Sit down, Mr. Romney.”

The most shocking exchange took place on the Benghazi attack that left the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others dead.

Mr. Romney: “You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror? It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying.”

Mr. Obama made no defense. “Please proceed, governor.”

“I want to make sure,” Mr. Romney said. “Get the transcript,” the president said. Then Ms. Crowley jumped in to do her own fact-check, on the spot. “It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. … He did call it an act of terror.”

The truth is, he didn’t. The day after the attack, he said only this: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” It took another two weeks before the White House would label the attack an act of terror.
The Obama people, of course, loved it — having blamed Mr. Obama’s dismal performance in the first debate on poor moderating.

“He’s back,” said Team O spokeswoman Jen Psaki, who lauded Ms. Crowley for her fact checking.
But then she caught herself and quickly added: “He was never really gone, but he’s back.”