And it grieves me every day. My formerly fun-loving, loose-living, country-club Republican dad now firmly believes every spittle-flecked utterance that comes out of O'Reilly's mouth. We don't talk politics, ever, because our basic disagreement about the nature of this country are now so profound that there's just no point.

This woman is a ticking timebomb. Suppose they get married and have children? How innefective do you suppose her "little fists" will be against a child's head, when the child provokes her anger?

I lived with a stepmother who expressed her anger at my father and my sisters and me by throwing things-- bowls, mops, lamps, books, whatever was handy. She never actually hit us with her hands, but the emotional scars of being attacked-- even by proxy-- took a very long time to heal.

The letter-writer is going to find himself in the middle of some very ugly scenes when married life heats up if his fiancee doesn't get some heavy-duty therapy and learn to deal with her own emotions. Blaming her outburst on him is a really, really bad sign.

pfmcdevitt nailed it-- the event will be full of surprises, and you should savor the chance to revisit old friends/nemeses with a new perspective. You were all young together, and that's something special. Have a good time, let your husband get a glimpse into your adolescent world, and don't worry about a thing.

I sincerely hope Kerry will concentrate on being an excellent senator and give up the idea of running again. He was a terrible candidate when it counted. Why should he muddy the waters and remind voters of why they didn't like the Democratic candidate last time around?

You're not being attacked for being in the gay porn industry, you're being attacked for being in the gay porn industry and aligning yourself with people who have made their bones by attacking gays and lesbians. And if you wanted to be on a campus that was friendly to the military, Columbia was not the logical choice. Your distress is disingenuous, my friend.

I read the article in question, and I believe you've pretty thoroughly mischaracterized both the tone of the article and the author's conclusions. No one was characterized as "swine" or anything like it for not appreciating Joshua Bell's gig as a street musician. The tone of the article was humorous, in part, and reflective, in part-- Weingarten discussed the idea of art without a frame, the way the pressures of daily living contribute to our unwillingness to stop and appreciate the unexpected, and how humbling it is for an artist when people studiously ignore his best efforts. No elitism there.