...doesn't mitigate the emabarassing fact that they were close enough to steal.

Bush is having the last laugh on America, because his life in this country has brought him nothing to make him think he needs to do better than this. A little "folksiness", a few buddies from Texas...doesn't take much more to be commander-in-chief these days.

Several posters have made the obvious points: the LW is self-centered, possibly suffers from a mental disorder, and is in no position to make a good decision for anyone including herself, but Cary writes a reply the woman might actually read and think about. He doesn't really agree with her pre-conceived decision, but manages to couch his opinion in a way that won't put her immediately on the defensive. I think he is to be commended for (consistently, by the way)composing thoughtful replies that really speak to the person writing the letter instead of grandstanding for his letter-writing public. Of course he takes the LW's point of view--SHE'S THE ONE WHO'S ASKING THE QUESTION! Why, and how would Cary usefully "take the perspective" of a man he knows nothing about regarding a relationship he knows nothing about? (The LW--as many have pointed out--provided next to no information in this regard).

It seems those critical of Cary's replies just can't stand reading anything where their own ox doesn't get gored.

"Mr. Rigid" isn't all that controlling; he doesn't snatch her cigarettes, he doesn't give ultimatums. He gives disapproving looks. The fact that those looks are sufficient to inhibit the LW's behavior says more about her than how controlling the bf is.

Seems to me what's going on here is that the LW didn't actually process whatever was causing her earlier self-destructive behaviors and kick them for herself--it was largely the influence of the bf that did that, i.e. she did it for him. In that way she simply traded several dependencies for a slightly less harmful one on her bf. Now she's chafing under that one a bit, and thinking about running back to smoking and drinking. She needs to do some work to figure out just why she has trouble doing what's best for her for herself.

...for a guy, I've always considered myself a little on the "vanilla" side sexually, but if my gf/spouse/whatever ever made these overtures to me I'd be there in a New York minute.

It's hard for me to imagine a guy wouldn't be.

I know it's politically (at least as far as sexual politics go) incorrect to suggest that there is something not on the level about the LW's bf, but I'm convinced there is something wrong there.

Ok, this was interesting for a while, and I was working up a nice, balanced philosophical analysis of the whole question but lately the discussion has just descended into too much vitriol.

Sure, let's have an all out ban on cruelty, there's a realistic idea--and legislated by government, no less (THIS government!!??, yeah right)

Your overwrought calls for a ban on foie gras have far less to do with cruelty and ducks than with the fact that the idea of birds fed through steel tubes happens to offend YOUR sensibilities.

And the other side speaks out of a huge sense of entitlement to gratify THEIR sensibilities, no matter what.

A pox on both your houses.

A good question?! A fair question?! Yeah right.

This is the political equivalent of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?", and Letterman may have been fumbling a bit, but his non-sequiter reply is about the only kind of answer this question deserves. It's the typical neo-con tactic to hijack an issue and prevent any meaningful discussion from taking place.

But I agree that Maher, while funny and (im)pertinent, is preaching to the choir.

...in a way Cheney is just as out of touch with (democratic) reality as Bush. Unfortunately the voting public have granted Cheney, Bush and Co. the means to fashion our reality their own way, and that's what they are doing.

It seems to me that you can open your heart to the Lord without opening your purse to a church...

That said, I have to agree with those that advise against trying to change your mother. Just decide for yourself if you can afford to give her the money. If you can, give it freely and forget about it--if you can't, don't.

Whoever here asked "where is it written in stone that the champion is necessarily the best team?" got it entirely right. If it that was written in stone, we could just compare budgets and player stats and call it a day (that's essentially what a pre-season No. 1 amounts to).

If you're going to crown a "champion" of a division as varied as NCAA I-A without a playoff, it should be on the basis of performance over an entire season.

To those who belittle Boise State for playing only "cupcakes" (Oregon State, anyone?)--that's their peer group, isn't it? Admittedly, Boise's program may be a bit more of a football factory than LA Tech or San Jose (Fresno St., anyone?), but these disparities exist across all conferences. Even so Boise doesn't match up to TOSU or Florida in terms of resources, and, anyway, we're just back to comparing budgets, facilities etc.

The fact remains that Boise State is one-hell-of-a Div. I-A cupcake who beat all comers, including the other other (also Div. I-A) cupcakes in its conference, and then played a decidedly non-cupcake team even up and managed to beat them as well. On the basis of this performance, they deserve the I-A "championship".

I know Californians are so annoying, but isn't clever how we've concentrated the population of know-nothing idiots in California where the weather is good and there are no natural hazards so they can't hurt themselves.

And by the way, No name given, way to stand behind your rant and show the courage of your convictions.