One aspect of the "manliness" question that Glenn Greenwald didn't mention is that it shows the bind the GOP is in. Basically, since they're unable to invest seriously in an anti-Obama narrative yet, they're trotting out the anti-Hillary narrative instead and slapping Obama's name on it.

I don't agree with that-- Hillary was (is?) going to get the 'man-eating bitch' treatment. The lesbian rumors, the 'ball-busting' and 'every man's nagging ex-wife' smears all speak to the fact that she's not 'feminine' enough for Right-Thinking America. Hillary's a man, Barack's a woman, and both those things are Unnatural and Bad.

The excepton, rather than the rule is that "some women can't breastfeed." I am soooo tired of hearing this excuse. (The logic is on par with "condoms break all the time, so they're not useful" - stupidity! But, I digress.)

That's not at all true, and you should know better. Those "some women" are real, generally have real physical conditions, and shouldn't be treated like pariahs. Adoptive moms also have a legitimate need for formula.

(Full disclosure: mom to a kid breastfed into toddlerhood, aunt to two adopted kids.)

I like Cary's advice. But you wouldn't be writing this letter if you were 100% satisfied. Have you thought about looking for some volunteer work in your town? The work found outside the church always attracts gay-friendly types, and there might be opportunities to pick up some freelance bucks or make connections if and when you do decide to find a more challenging job.

And hey, ask the gardener to grab a cup of coffee with you sometime. It doesn't have to be a date, you can just do the friends thing while you figure out if he's really dating material.

The reality of the situation is that the Dalai Lama would've died decades ago if he hadn't continued to preach nonviolence (which I do believe he sincerely believes in). To suggest that he would've had the same spiritual and political influence if he'd been shot in the head by an assassin in the nineteen-forties or fifties is absurd.

Yeah, I follow you. It's ridiculous to blame any ideology for the actions of the most fervent followers of that ideology.

---sarcasm on---

As ridiculous as blaming Chinese Communist Nationalism for the actions of Chinese police in Tibet.

As ridiculous as blaming Nazism for the actions of German followers during the Holocaust.

These things are not like the others. Tibetan Buddhism is not Zen or Nichiren Buddhism. Your metaphor is incorrect. It's more like blaming Baptist ministers for the actions of Catholic priests. Buddhism is older than Christianity, and the theological divisions between practices even more pronounced. Different divisions of Buddhism embrace non-violence with different levels of fervor.

Nice one.

If those pansy frenchifers hadn't been so busy eating cake & drinking wine out of the gutter they could have invented TV back in the 18th centusry & you would have been able to see lots of great beheadings in the French Revolution.

The least they could do was let us watch the electrocutions we do here in the States. It's just like barbeque!

For being white and liking Gnarls Barkley. Glad I had a chance to be properly shamed.

Salon editors: Is the word 'wigger' really necessary or acceptable?

I'll bet you anything this camp has a website, that's pretty clear about what it's all about (as for most families the Jesus thing is a benefit, not a downside). Check it out-- call and ask for their brochure, if they don't have a website. If you're afraid the aunt will run interference, have a friend call and play dumb for you. You're not without options here.

Then you get to make the call.

If it's a crazy camp, then say no. Send them to a Y camp or a 4H camp (do they still have 4H? I hope so) or whatever. Or just tell them why, at a level they can get, you don't want them hanging around people who will tell them that your nice neighbor George is going to burn in hell.

If it's relatively inoffensive, send them, and have a lot of talks with them when they come back about what they did, what they learned, and how they felt about it all. My six-year-old daughter brought up Jesus's story the other day (and boy, was I unprepared for that one) and we had a long talk about Roman politics, reincarnation, and diversity of belief. (Not sure how much she got out of it, but I'll keep answering her questions as best I can.)

You should talk to them about faith, no matter what. They already know that the rest of the family feels differently from you, and they have a right to know why-- and you have an obligation to teach them what you believe.

I'm glad this is helpful. Your kids' ages are also helpful-- they're old enough to be (fairly) reliable reporters, and to really understand the difference between your beliefs and that of the rest of your family. Good luck, again!

Apologies if this has been said before.

Eight years ago, a winner-take-all system (and some nasty dealings in Florida) gave George W. Bush a Presidential victory over Al Gore. despite losing the popular vote nationwide. Now Sean Wilentz is arguing that a similar system is the 'right' system and the one that should be used to determine the Democratic nominee?

Is he insane?

No one could take a lie and cling to it like he could. I'm guessing the new message for Petraeus' testimony will be much like the last one: The road before is is difficult and long.

(BTW, loving the recent War Room coverage! Great work, Steve.)