By "irreversible decision," I mean killing yourself.

This is advice I give to anybody suicidal: Procrastinate.

When it comes to taking your life, nothing beats being a lazy-ass. You might just lazy-ass yourself into a new reason for living.

Regarding your current situation, your life was a mess whether or not you found a man you love, and whether or not he had an untimely death. If you'd never met this man, your life would still be a mess, because you're in a loveless marriage with a man 21 years your senior (how'd that happen, anyway?).

With or without this other man in your life, it would make sense for you to seek a divorce -- amicable if at all possible.

It would also be worth carefully and honestly examining how you got here. How'd you give such a big chunk of your life to this person for whom you evidently have no feelings? (And what went wrong with him, anyway? How'd he turn out to be such a misogynist, and why didn't you notice the warning signs before it was too late? I am curious what's up with this man.)

You have some amount of duty to your children, no matter how old they are. By killing yourself you'd be robbing each of them of a mother and a friend when they're entering one of the toughest and most confusing parts of their lives, their young adulthood. As they grow up, they might also turn into your best adult friends....if you give them the chance to do so by sticking around on this planet.

I didn't read Cary's response, but a licensed therapist might be an effective move for you. It couldn't hurt.

It might be difficult to imagine, but there are undoubtedly other people out there (some of them men) who are at similar crossroads in their lives, and whom you might find powerful and fulfilling future connections with.

First things first, though: Figure out what to do with your husband. Might be worth having a conversation with him. It's sad to be so close to somebody and yet so far away in fundamental ways.

And thanks for posting the video.

This video is an example of two things: (1) It's an example of a politician having a civil conversation with his opponents (who are also being civil); (2) It's an example of the sort of thing that won't make an exciting clip or soundbite for TV news, so it will probably not get much attention. If only Franken had called somebody a name or something...

Crumb explores, in detail, his sexual fascination for women with very large thighs.

That is all.

Oh yeah, by the way: If you have really large thighs, be sure to wear a thigh-bra. Otherwise later in life your thighs will droop and become cankles.

As long as we're including Jane Austen stories, "Clueless" definitely deserves a mention.

I can't think of many romantic comedies (or romances in general) where I was really dying for the two people to get together. Usually the best part of such movies is in the tension of them being apart -- which is why the stories tend to separate them even after they connect. (If they didn't, the movie would just turn into a "9 1/2 Weeks" series of lovemaking sessions...)

For my money, the best tension-building romance I've ever seen is the full 5-episode A&E version of "Pride & Prejudice." It has some light comedy to it (such as the way the Bennett father reacts to the silly behavior of his wife), but the romance is pretty freaking top-notch. By the time the two leads finally get together, you're full-on rooting for Eliabeth and Mr. Darcy to tear each other's clothes off and do it in the road. Okay, maybe not that, since it'd be a dirt road littered with horse droppings, but you're definitely hoping they'll make a lot of reserved, literate babies.

I don't think she used "white" as a pejorative, I think she used it to paint a picture. It didn't occur to me there was anything racist about it, especially considering Zacharek is white, but more importantly that her judgment rested not on their appearance/ethnicity but on their behavior.

Humanaction: "And let's ask Joan, if George Bush pulled this bullshit, she would be fine and dandy with it? Give me a break."

If George Bush gave a message encouraging kids to stay in school, the only thing liberals might do is make a joke about Bush not giving a similar speech to people in the National Guard (where he went AWOL). Otherwise nobody would have much objection -- and certainly not the level or tenor of the current objections. Most liberal/left people would be all for anything that encourages people to get a good education.

Incidentally, Obama isn't the only one sending out this message alongside the Department of Education. There are also a number of NASCAR racers who are involved in the effort. (Oh no! NASCAR racers are attempting to indoctrinate our youth into socialism!)

Humanaction: "But hey, now our kids will have a 5 day weekend."

You mean you're pulling your kids out of school all day so they won't see a 15-to-20-minute message from Obama? Wow...

Rkymtnmary: "Parents DO have the right to object to indoctrination of their children."

Nowhere in Walsh's column does she say parents do not have the right to object to anything.

There is no support for your assertion that Obama's speech encouraging kids to stay in school is tantamount to "indoctrination."

Rkymtnmary: "And as a l i b e r a l, I'm glad to see that they are."

As a liberal, you are not very honest. It is not a liberal viewpoint that a president shouldn't give appropriate encouragement to kids about going to school.

Rkymtnmary: "Of course, Walsh would defend him no matter what he did so no sense in arguing with the lobamatized."

Perhaps Obama should give you a speech as well.