I can't imagine anything worse for an abuser than having to go on national tv and talk about abuse. It's just not conducive to the kind of process that needs to take place -- honest examination of feelings and motivation and so on. Oh sure, castigate him for not just going with the program and stating the obvious, but seriously, as someone who has worked with abused women, guys like him need to be out of the limelight so they can honestly examine what happened and what they need to do about it. This just isn't going to happen on Larry King, and I, for one, wouldn't really care what he says -- the proof is in what happens over the course of the next one, five or ten years.

Is how thoroughly enmeshed LW has become in her husband's family drama. This suggests that her husband is every bit as profoundly affected by it as Cary surmises, and that "moving to Colorado" will not provide the kind of relief that LW is seeking. Getting away seems like the right thing to do -- so long as "getting away" entails psychological and not just geographic distance. Sure, mom is selfish and unfairly favors the brother in law who is a jerk and a ne'er do well, and auntie is well-meaning but clueless. Do you think these family circumstances are unique or especially awful? What's unique, or at least highly particular to this case, is the hold these human failings have on LW and her husband. There must be a reason for that, and that's what needs to change.

The youngest "old" person was born in 1944. Many people who grew up in the Depression or whose family life was heavily influenced by the effect of the Depression, which would almost certainly include the members of the so-called "greatest generation," operate from the psychological starting point that they can lose everything they have at any time. They are not actually very optimistic about things like this, and pessimists don't like to share what they have. When you add racism and generally low support of Obama among the elderly, to this mix, this is what you get.

I deduced this after dozens of conversations with my very affluent in-laws -- it doesn't matter how much money they have, they will never feel wealthy.

In that light, the statistics actually look pretty good to me, and I would bet further that if you tried to break them down by five year increments you would find that there is an especially hard core of stingies born between 1925 and 1935.

Or maybe just a scoundrel or a cheat. Unless you know this person's whole life history, you won't figure it out. I roomed with a woman who lied about everything, most notably everything connected to her academic record, past and future (claimed to have been deferred admission to a prestigious law school, and then moved to the town where it was located). After I started to suspect that something wasn't on the up and up, I thought for a while that she was just husband hunting, but even after she had all kinds of great earning nice guy contenders in her camp, she always had a reason for why she couldn't continue seeing them. Once, a doctor friend sent her an airline ticket to come see him and she exchanged it for cash.

And the thing was, the whole specactle was very entertaining, you can't make people believe outlandish things the way she did without having a lot of charisma -- that is, it was until she stuck me with three months of rent, utilities, etc., which was probably a cheap price for being clued into the fact that people like her really do exist. (It was, parenthetically, also a close and upfront lesson in the power of long blonde hair to make smart men completely lose their marbles.) And I never really figured out whether she was opportunistic or troubled or both. She clearly was a scammer, but she seemed troubled as well, and there was no way the path she was on could end well. No idea what happened because her whole life depended on being able to move on from the people she cheated.

I don't recall McEnroe and Nastase ever threatening anyone with violence (and however much she contends that it was "just words" Serena Williams did strongly imply the threat of violence).

Second, it's one thing to scream at the umpire, sitting up there in the chair, which is what McEnroe and Nastase did, repeatedly -- but I don't recall them ever going after linespeople down on the ground.

I hated McEnroe's brattiness, and Nastase's antics would have been equally infuriating except that they had more impact on his game -- negatively -- than the other player. He was his own worst enemy. They both should have been penalized more often than they were.

It also drives me nuts when a certain subset of Russian women players take injury timeouts at incredibly fortuitous points in the match. I never root for Maria Sharapova because of this nakedly unfair practice, which she has used time and time again.

But threatening a much smaller lines person with violence is sort of in a league by itself. Even Jeff Tarango didn't do that -- though his wife, I believe, slapped an official.

I agree with Cary, that crave the bad boy because he allows you to avoid feeling like conformist, conventional you -- the one who practices yoga and eats healthy food like you are expected to.

I disagree with Cary that you should search for your own inner bad girl. Why don't you just accept that she likely isn't there and that you are fine the way you are?

What your bad boy probably understands: your kind gets tired of his kind and will never allow him to guide your life in anything really important, or for long.

Be honest with yourself.