I agree with everyone who says get away from this guy, now. His financial irresponsibility and belligerence suggest a powerful sense of entitlement -- not something that bodes well for your future. Don't be a martyr in the hopes that your long-suffering patience will change him. Suffering someone else's bad behavior does not earn you any rewards, like a sudden desire to be financially responsible. This guy has no reason to change his behavior.

I just want to add: I've dated a lot of men who I thought were wonderful. After we broke up I couldn't believe that I had thought that. This guy may be the best boyfriend you've ever had. But you're in your 20s and haven't had all that many boyfriends, I'd bet. As I've grown older I've gotten better at dating men who suit me, because I've learned more and more about what's possible, and what is and isn't acceptable to me. It *is* possible to find someone bright and funny and attractive and employed and not content to sponge off of you. Dump this guy now and find someone who can give you all that you are capable of giving back.

I'd like to second what a lot of posters said -- that is, hey, you're not that badly off! (I'm 36, single, have lotsa students loans and live in a studio apt, myself. I'm pretty happy, however). The fact is, there are many steps you can take to improve your mood and your life.

First of all, goals. SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and timely) goals (www.topachievement.com/smart.html) got me from the moment of inspired dedication (which usually doesn't last very long) to the actual work, which is where the progress gets made. Pick a few things you want to achieve, make these goals very specific, and come up with small, reasonably painless ways to inch towards these achievements. For instance, don't declare you're going to lose 40 pounds. Decide that you're going to give up potato chips, or walk a mile a day, for one week. See what happens.

I also joined Weight Watchers (online, so I didn't have to actually go to meetings) -- I lost 15 lbs., and it's something like $17 a month.

Finally, Alain de Botton's The Consolations of Philosophy was very helpful when I was most depressed, about six or eight years ago. Give it a whirl.

Good luck, and chin up.

First of all, Terkoy, The Post retracted that article about lobster and caviar at the Waldorf: http://www.nypost.com/seven/10212008/gossip/pagesix/room_disservice_134490.htm. Even they couldn't get away with such blatant slander, and you shouldn't try it, either.

Secondly, "momification" was and is the Obama campaign's own strategy. On the Obama website, this is the introduction on Michelle's page: "When people ask Michelle to describe herself, she doesn't hesitate. First and foremost, she is Malia and Sasha's mom." (http://www.barackobama.com/learn/meet_michelle.php).

It's savvy, and maybe it's true. I do believe that America sentimentalizes and trivializes motherhood, and so Michelle's concerns as a mother are used to make her seem like somebody more people can identify with. After all, few Americans are highly paid corporate lawyers, but lots are mothers.

But why not? Look at the flak Hillary took for her career, her feminism, her headbands. I'm sure the Obamas know that they will face lots of challenges in the next four (or eight) years, from not just the opposition but snarky journalists, too (ahem). If the Obamas can make it a little easier on themselves by removing Michelle from the line of fire and emphasizing her maternal role, who's Traister to find it so disturbing? Or, rather, feature-worthy? I mean, really. Let's save the bemused indignation for the real outrages.

Cary, I think you missed the boat on this one.

Readers have chimed in with direct and thoughtful (if cynical) insight and advice. But not you. You neglected your duty to the LW when you declined to warn her of the significant personal, financial, legal and emotional risks she runs by staying with the crackhead boyfriend.

I thought the film was great. My boyfriend read me the blurb and I thought, "Gah! Why should I pay $10 to feel depressed for two hours?" But I really enjoyed it.

I particularly liked the scene composition -- for example, in the scene O'Hehir mentions, when the heroine Otilia is stuck at her boyfriend's parents' dinner party, the dinner table is crammed with people, only you can't see most of them: The camera allows various elbows and cigarettes into view, but not faces. I can't quite explain how affecting this was, how it contributes to the atmosphere of claustrophobia and tension, or how much, as a moviegoer, I enjoyed the experience.

There's a real feeling of dread and terror -- the scenes in the hotel with the abortionist were particularly shocking -- and Otilia is a fantastic heroine.

Seriously, you should see it.

I think the suggestion here is that because Winehouse is white and Jewish (read: middle class), not to mention English, her debauchery and addiction function as examples of her exploitation of a (Black) American soul tradition.

But pop artists -- all of them, regardless of color or clean living -- have been mining the blues and soul -- popular music's roots -- for years and years. All artists rely on their forbearers to inform their work, and some of them model themselves on their heroes. Amy Winehouse probably buys into the myth of the doomed artist, but I doubt her addictions are just her way of appropriating authentic r&b culture. She's a talented entertainer, and a train wreck, and, sadly, the fact that she's a train wreck is entertainment, too.