What indication do you have that the husband is happier with his new wife?

The fact that he left Finnamore for her is pretty good evidence, don't you think? No offense, but it's far better evidence than your generalized observation about how happy men like this "end up."

It's not even necessarily true that cheating indicates unhappiness in the current relationship.

It doesn't have to be necessarily true in this general way--the ex-husband actually talked to Finnamore about being unhappy.

Someone did a big old study on this recently... what they found was that most cheaters didn't plan to cheat, had no particular dissatisfaction with the spouse, they just ended up in a situation ...

What study was that? Even if it's true as you stated it, which seems unlikely, I don't at all believe that it's the case with most cheaters who actually leave their spouse to be with the person they cheated with, as was the case here. Again, the guy actually talked to Finnamore about his unhappiness, so why is this even in question? Sure, it's possible that he could have lied about being unhappy, but that's not very likely given that he obviously didn't want to be in the marriage anymore.

What bothered me about this interview was that Finnamore seems to think that she was purely good and her ex was purely bad, so much so that she can barely acknowledge his existence. (Maybe her book is more complex, but this interview sure isn't.) It's possible that her ex-husband really was the devil, but it's awfully unlikely, and this black-and-white attitude is undeniably self-serving on her part. It almost always takes two to make a failed marriage, even if one person cheats, but Finnamore is apparently unable to recognize this. She survived her divorce, and she was clearly wronged by her ex, but it doesn't sound like she learned anything from it.

What do you think are the reasons that your ex-husband is happier with this other woman than he was with you? Might that have something to do with how you behaved during the marriage? Just because there was another woman doesn't mean that everything he said was a lie, and recognizing that you probably contributed to the failure of the marriage--even though it was primarily your ex-husband's fault--isn't the same as letting him off the hook. Maybe your husband is the perfect asshole that you make him out to be in this interview, but that's a rare occurrence.

Also, your description of the double-standard is way overstated. You have no idea how men who have left their families get treated--not by the media but by regular people--and the suggestion that there's no social disapproval associated with that is just dumb. And the reason they only call every Sunday is often that that's all they can do, because the courts aren't very likely to give them custody.

I'm glad you're so strong and proud, Ms. Finnamore, but you seem remarkably lacking in wisdom. Forgiveness and understanding will ultimately be a lot better for you than arrogance.

"... most people understand that Earth Day is about saving the humans." - ELYDOG

Where did you get that idea? No, most people don't understand that, and that's the author's point. Most people think we'll just be able to adapt to whatever damage we do and our civilization will be just fine, and that's exactly why we're in the situation we're in now.

The biggest mistake of the environmental movement was to focus on the message of "saving the planet," which is absurd. We could destroy life on earth altogether and the earth would go on, and it wouldn't be any better or worse off. The physical world doesn't have a value system. A razed forest isn't any better or worse for the planet than a thriving forest is. Diversity of species and even life itself aren't inherently any better for the cosmos than the absence of them. (Is the moon somehow "worse" than the earth? Is Neptune?)

The only reason--aside from religious ones--things that support life are good and desirable is that WE value them. There's nothing wrong with that, and we'd make a lot more environmental progress if more people could admit it. Acting in the interest of the human race and preserving our way of life are not only the motives that are most likely to galvanize the public (who, generally speaking, otherwise don't care enough to make any real sacrifices), they're also the only rational motives.

... that if the NBA postseason were shorter and occurred just before the NCAA tournament instead of after it, then there would an awful lot less interest in the NCAAs, largely because the quality of play would look surprisingly weak. The best things college ball has going for it are the awesome structure of the tournament and its spot on the calendar. I don't know whether all this was by design or accident, but from a fan's perspective it sure works out well.

Do you think my chances are better for making a free throw, or for scoring a basket against the Kansas defense? The difference is a big one. That's why the missed free throws are a greater failing on the part of Memphis.