I don't see anything "especially sad" about this-- unless, of course, only Christians are permitted to join the Boy Scouts. 

Last I noticed-- and speaking as a Jew-- subscribing to a faith other than Christianity in no way prevents one from believing in G-d and country. 

Nor does it require of one an encyclopedic knowledge of the religious traditions, practices, and holidays celebrated by others.

As another child expressed curiosity about Good Friday, I hope your son took the opportunity to share a part of his faith by politely explaining it, rather than merely dismissing the question and thus increasing the difference and distance between them.

I disagree entirely with her politics, but salute her tremendous courage and determination.  G-d bless her!

Paris, yes, of course he is, but it can't be news to you that Hispanics self-identify as a specific minority group with specific interests and concerns, and are collectively identified and accepted as something other than standard issue Caucasian.  This isn't a question of formal delineation of race-- it's a question of politics, which is all about perception.  In that reality, Rubio is a horse of a different color. 

This is going to be an incredibly ugly race-- everything's pointing to it-- and the Republican candidate is going to need some cover.  Rubio can provide that.  There will no doubt be those who squirm at the political incorrectness of pointing this out, but that's the reality of the situation.  There's nothing to be gained from pretending it isn't so. 

Happily, Rubio brings to the table far more than the obvious.  His qualities have marked him by many as future presidential timber, perhaps eight or twelve years down the road, and although 2012 is early for him, the second slot would be a good fit for the energy and excitement he brings with him.  Romney has the gravitas, Rubio the charisma.  It works.   . 

Let's be bluntly honest about this:  it has to be Rubio.  With the Obamatron poised to launch a race war (virtual or, should he consider it necessary, real) in order to be reelected-- and it's the only card he has left to play, considering that (a) he now has a record, and (b) he can't possibly run on it-- the Republican party cannot have two white men on the ticket. 

Rubio is smart, handsome, and ethnic-- and the chances are pretty good that he can deliver Florida.  Nothing against Martinez, but women are no longer bedazzled by women candidates, she isn't going to win over large numbers of Hispanic men, and New Mexico is not electorally relevant.  It has to be Rubio-- who is also charming, energetic, and could probably be far more effective in the Mexican communities than popular wisdom has it. 

Visualize them together:  Romney & Rubio.  It works. 

Has anyone tried? 

Absent that, there's always the hope that someone will drop a house on her...

Agreed-- these factors all come into play. But what everyone is uncomfortably tip-toeing around is the politically incorrect elephant in the room:  the dreadfully inconvenient truth that not everyone is bright enough to either earn acceptable scores on their exams or successfully complete the course work. 

For years now the Left has been force-feeding us the absurd lie that "everyone" should go to college.  Well, they shouldn't.  But instead of recognizing this and, sensibly, teaching those of limited intellect a productive and useful trade with which to earn a good living, it has instead become policy to hand such individuals meaningless degrees in soft, fuzzy fields of study that equip them to do absolutely nothing.

Admitting this and acting on it would inject a badly needed dose of reality into a system that explains its failures with everything but the truth-- but doing so would probably wound the poor dear "children's" sense of self esteem-- and we can't have that!

DocJay, you would get along famously with my fiance, a rather brilliant physicist whose primary character flaw is his proclivity for making very bad puns-- the worse, the better.  If one is still causing my eyes to roll four hours after it was made, he's a happy man who knows that, at least on this day, he has done something to justify is existence.  

(The Spectator never sent a validation post to my email address, so I'm posting the comment here.)

______________________________________________

The British people have seen their national sovereignty increasingly and systematically surrendered to the control of bureaucrats in Brussels, and David Cameron's intransigent determination to prevent a vote on whether or not this capitulation should continue, combined with his crudely ham-fisted efforts in demanding that his members vote against the proposed referendum, may well prove far more destructive to the Tory party than anyone has yet realized.

Unlike many of the unwelcome changes that have taken place in Britain, this was an unmistakable, in-your-face act of denying the people their democratic rights, and they saw and recognized it as never before, in a very real and very graphic manner. 

I cannot begin to imagine what has possessed Mr. Cameron, as he is either in an alarmingly delusional state of denial or inexplicably intent on hanging himself, but regardless of his motivation I do know that the voting public can only be pushed so far-- and I'm convinced he's gone a long way toward pushing them into the waiting and welcoming arms of UKIP. 

Despite his ludicrously failed effort to physically resemble Ronald Reagan, Perry, from the first debate in which he took part, has struck me as a modern-day Elmer Gantry in search of his revival tent, and not in any way as the heir to the Great Communicator.  And while there is ample evidence that, absent the aid of a teleprompter, the current occupier of the Oval Office has difficulty forming cohesive sentences, Perry's debating skills are so abysmally poor that, standing next to him, even Obama would seem articulate.

The one thing we know about the upcoming presidential campaign is that it will be brutal-- Obama is utterly incompetent as a president, but the one thing he does know how to do is campaign, and with the media and the unions backing him to the hilt, and pulling every dishonest trick in the book to get him reelected, the Republicans MUST nominate a candidate whose qualities include being very quick on his feet-- something that clearly leaves out the verbally flat-footed Perry.

A winning candidate will have to connect and resonate with his audience and, if one is listening, that candidate is, more and more, Newt Gingrich.

This was the first-- and, thus far, the only-- debate through which I've had to struggle to maintain interest.  Or consciousness.  And failed.  On both counts.  The only element that did not seem a plodding rehash of what we've heard and seen before was the offensively boorish behavior of Jim Cramer, who should give serious thought to switching to decaf.

I think it's time to put a finish to these endless rounds of equal-opportunity debates and clear away the deadwood-- Bachman, Huntsman, Paul, Santorum, and that fork-stuck slice of Texas Toast, Rick Perry, and focus on those candidates who are either viable or, at the very least, interesting.  If things keep on as they were tonight, the GOP risks making Obama appear, by comparison, positively scintillating.  

Watching the debate I saw two highly intelligent, fully engaged and fully engaging men who obviously liked and respected each other, sharing and fleshing out their positions and opinions, and having a simply wonderful time doing so-- an experience clearly shared by the audience.  It was, in fact, so good, that I rewound my DVR and watched it a second time.

Bottom line:  I'd be very happy with either of these men as our president-- particularly if the other candidate were asked to serve an important role in the winner's cabinet. 

And I don't give a flying damn whether or not once-upon-a-time Herman Cain once made a woman "uncomfortable".  A word?  A gesture?  Who knows!  All we have is conjecture, innuendo, and a lot of disapproving head shaking and tsk-tsking. 

The fact that all of this has sent Leftists into a collective fit of the vapors-- something I'm coming to suspect is their natural state-- is just something with which they'll have to live.   

After all, it's asking a lot to expect Republicans to live up to the high-flying moral standards set by Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy. 

I credited Mr. Delingpole with being well informed, up to the point at which he categorized both Herman Cain and Ron Paul as candidates "whose views more closely represent what needs to be done".  

Ron Paul is a lunatic.  And further proves it every time he opens his mouth.

His views do not remotely represent what needs to be done nor, for that matter, those of anyone I could even minimally respect or want anywhere even conceivably within reach of a seat of true power. 

Herman Cain is a very different story.  A practical, down-to-earth problem-solver with the experience, imagination, and drive to take hold of an out-of-control economy, he also strikes me as someone with both the common sense and intelligence to surround himself with those who are at the top in their own fields and build a strong, solid administration that can work to rebuild the present while laying the groundwork for the future-- in otherwords, the ideal chief executive.  

I'll happily support him all the way to the White House.   

I hope he will not again be done the extreme disservice of having his name mentioned with that of Ron Paul.

Deven Sharma, the president of Standard and Poor's, has stated clearly and unequivocally that the downgrade resulted from insufficient cuts in spending-- not the political bickering, not the dark machinations of the Tea Party, not the Republicans' refusal to follow Dear Leader off the cliff-- INSUFFICIENT CUTS IN SPENDING.

The fault for this lies at Obama's door.  Period.  I've no doubt, however, that while the rest of the country-- and, indeed, the world-- is worrying about what happens next, that irresponsible, tantrum-throwing child in the Oval Office is concerned only about how he can avoid the blame. 

I've suspected for some time that on his desk is a sign that reads "The buck stops with George."

As a native Californian (who fled 16 years ago and have since made my home on the decidedly conservative south coast of Oregon), I can remember as far back as early childhood hearing the arguments of those (primarily in the northern state) who felt thoroughly disenfranchised and permanently aggravated by the south's near-total dominance of the state's political and financial decisions. 

The current call for division of the state is nothing more than a new writing of an old manuscript, and one we've seen many times before.  Are the arguments valid?  Of course-- they struck me as valid 40 years ago.  Will they get anywhere?  Not a chance!  Never have, never will. 

Why would the voters of southern California change a system that, as it stands, works completely to their advantage? 

While I don't have children, never wanted them, and don't particularly like them, I'm certain this is one of a growing number of decisions that is not up to the government to make. But this does not mean that bad parenting should receive a pass.

Those who are so besotted with their offspring as to believe their dreadful hellions can do no wrong seem adamantly convinced that neither little Bratleigh's behavior nor their own parenting skills should ever be in any way criticized. That's fine, as long as her behavior is impacting only those members of her family who subscribe to this view.

But once she begins racing a grocery cart around the supermarket, slamming it into innocent bystanders, and then throwing a tantrum because their presence blocked her way, I'm going to say something.

Ditto for when she remains intent on kicking the back of my airline seat all the way from Cairo to Amsterdam.

Also when she repeatedly interrupts an adult conversation and goes through her entire repertoire of whining, pouting, crying, and screaming when she fails to receive immediate and undivided attention.

Speaking for the village, we find this damned annoying.

Twenty years ago my rabbi, the most brilliant and wickedly funny man I've ever known, was shot to death while making a speech. Among his less amusing-- but chillingly accurate-- observations was that "the only thing a Jew can do to make the world happy is die." The world continues to prove-- in a long list of ways that will probably not be recognized until it's far, far too late-- that Meir Kahane was entirely correct.

May his memory be blessed.