It's true that ambition is important. It's true that simplicity and gratitude are as well. It's tough to find the fine line where you're not content with having no degree, because you want to provide as much for your family as possible, but where you're still okay with driving a rusty car while you're working on the degree and the savings account. Both are important to live, and both are important to teach our children.

Excellent article, and it's all true, except one tiny detail. I disagree with the author when he says that a true leftist would prefer the nation where all are middle class: no, what True Leftists really desire is a nation where everyone is equal, preferably equally middle-class, EXCEPT FOR THEMSELVES. They would, of course, as the enlightened leaders, be the only rich in the nation. This can be seen by the fact that so many of the leftists that surround Obama love taxes - but don't pay them. They are, you see, an exception to the rule. (It can also be seen in History's leftist countries, like the Soviet Union. The leaders there are always exceptions to the equality rule - and, naturally, they always have excellent reasons...

Nonprofits and religious groups in the private sector are doing far more to help Africa than any governments are. Governmental "aid" goes to those few at the top of the totem pole in countries where a few men in palaces possess most of the GDP and kick farmers out of the already-starving economy. (see "How Mugabe Wrecked His Nation's Dollar," World Finance). On the other hand, hundreds if not thousands of programs like "Stay Alive" (teaching children how you get Aids, and how to avoid getting it) "Mali Rising," and Christian medical and construction aid groups actually make a difference to people on the ground. A group of students from Brigham Young University doing research in Mozambique even recently figured out a way for locals to...

While I agree with Mr. Prager that physical discipline is perfectly acceptable - even necessary for some children - if and when done correctly, it's a little disturbing to me that his first-mentioned problem with the ad is the 5-year-old slapping a very deserving SOB across the face. More disturbing, I think, is the fact that Doritos places themselves with equal importance with the mother's moral and physical safety in the eyes of the child: "Keep your hands off my mama, keep your hands off my doritos." Perhaps the child's reaction would send a much-needed message not only to the offending carnally-minded date, but also to his equally-carnally-minded mother.

Also, I agree with Mr. Prager that parents - and also other adults with...

that Napolitano still has the gall to insist that the real danger nowadays is not radical Islamist extremists, but rather those "right-wing radical" nut-jobs. Because, you know, there are so many of those who have been caught trying to blow up planes.

Thank you for making this point: if you want to fight women's oppression, why ban them from wearing something they may want to? Especially when you're a coward toward fighting real oppression in the Middle East? This move is a dangerous denial of religious freedoms. What one person may think of as oppression of women may be another woman's treasure - for example, motherhood and being a stay-at-home wife is what some women prefer to do. But some few radical feminists claim marriage and motherhood are oppressive to women - are we going to outlaw that too in France? How about in the US?

For once, I disagree with Ms. Parker. Huckabee is a truly bigoted man who continues unnecessary and hurtful divisiveness between conservatives who actually share core values and helps continue the myth on the Left that all conservatives are bigoted. The way he treated Gov. Romney, and LDS members (Mormons) in general, during his campaign is inexcusable. The facts are, that we also believe in defending marriage - in deed as well as in word; we have much lower than average divorce rates - and in defending our freedoms. We should be able to work off these and other common goals.

There are some very good reasons not to allow gays in the military. The best one was stated in the article (though not by the author): homosexual sex is immoral, and we shouldn't be condoning immoral acts. Even for those who immediately cry "First Amendment Foul!" for some hypocritical reason when an argument like that is made, though, there are other secular reasons as well. One of them is the same reason that it's problematic to have women in the military: the distraction of sexual attraction. Distractions are literally a life and death thing in uniform.

As for the reasoning that 'well, we accept "killers, rapists, and child molesters," it is a logical fallacy to make that kind of argument. It makes no sense to say "well, this...

This is why we shouldn't allow adoption by homosexuals - ONE) because they are THOUSANDS OF TIMES more promiscuous and their promiscuity endangers the children in their homes (Radhakrishna 2001, Stiffman 2002, Schnitzer & Ewigman 2005); TWO) because many of them (the ones that are the most honest, in my opinion, after reading articles like this) show their true colors as pedophiles (see Wikipedia's entry on the "North American Man-Boy Love Association" for details - you're not allowed on its own web site if you're heterosexual).

What happened to not doing deals with terrorists?

I might be wrong, but my guess is criminals actually kill far more people in a year than terrorists do.

And our reaction is to encourage their destructive behavior by having an official policy allowing them to get away?!?!?