Well, sure, keeping transgender people out of the bathroom appropriate to their acquired gender would stop the highly-hypothetical sex offender who wants to prey on children of the opposite sex by pretending to be transgendered. But plenty of sex offenders prey on children of their own sex. Isn't the far more effective approach to create children's-only bathrooms?

Or...radical idea here...maybe we could just stop using "Tha Children!" -- and the .000001% chance that they could be at risk -- to play on peoples' emotions for our own nefarious political ends.

I think what some letter writers are struggling with is the idea that someone might look at these acts in isolation, and might therefore "side" with the Nazis -- so they seek to explain or justify the actions of the Russians. Others respond, truthfully, that there is no justifying actions like these. But, respectfully, I think both views miss the point.

The sad truth is that this is (for better or worse) a predictable part of war -- particularly a war in which there had been so many prior atrocities. It's not morally right, by any means -- but it is also not unexpected. War itself is horrible, evil, and wrong, and these are the things that happen in wartime.

Now, of course, the experience of war is too large a thing to ever tell the whole story at once -- and so we tell only parts at a time. The experience of Jews in concentration camps. Of Russian peasants starving to death in the remnants of their farms. Of survivors eating rats in Stalingrad. Together, these tell us the whole truth -- that war is disgusting, degrading, and cruel. That the Nazis were wrong. That Germany's actions in starting the war were evil, but also insane.

Telling the story of German women adds to that story -- theirs is a special suffering, but also a part of a much larger suffering. But when we tell the story of the German women -- the women whose society let slip the machinery of evil that caused so much suffering -- there's also a strong inclination to say "hey, wait a second, that's not the whole story." We feel compelled to fill in the gaps with a justification or explanation -- how many Jews the Nazis killed, etc.

But there is no way to justify rape -- it was not "justice." Rather, what we should do is try to understand what happened to these women, and why. This is not about who deserved what -- this is simply understanding what it means to be at war.

As average guys go, Obama's pretty normal. He had a regular job before becoming president, worried about the things you mention, etc. Now that he's president...yeah, you can't be president and a regular citizen. Nothing about that is unique to Obama.

In fact, that's what's so funny about this. Regular guys...play golf sometimes on weekends. It's a good game -- not that expensive ($150 will buy you a set of basic clubs and a couple of boxes of balls, and your muni course will usually only set you back $20 or so), and great for getting away from it all and spending an afternoon outdoors.

Hey, maybe it's not your preferred sport...I can dig that. But what's wrong with Obama trying to just be normal for an afternoon -- within the confines of a job that really doesn't offer the opportunity very often?

Silverman's stuff is difficult humor -- I'll give you that. I understand why you don't get it -- but you clearly don't. The joke is that this pretty white girl character is, in fact, horrible in many different ways (not, as you seem to think, primarily involving race -- she's an all-out evil character). Sarah Silverman the person is not asking people to emulate her character -- in fact, the point is that people should hate her character. (Yes, much like Cartman -- or like Colbert.)

Your preferred character would instead be self-deprecating about race -- huh? So if a comedian pokes fun at RACISTS...she's a racist. But if a comedian makes racist jokes, that's fine as long as they're about people of his or her own race. Man, that's some twisted logic ya got there.

Exactly -- I was wondering if someone was going to say it. My first instinct was that this guy either:

a) Doesn't want to marry her, or

b) Is laying the foundation for cheating (or is already cheating).

My guess (without knowing either of them) is (a).

Sometimes it's good to take someone's sturm und drang at face value -- but you should be suspicious of consternation for consternation's sake. Do you really think this guy is terrified that he might cheat? If he's so scared, don't you think he'd just...not cheat? I mean, guys usually know if they're the type that would cheat or not. They don't spend time taking Cosmo quizzes to try to figure out what type of husband they'd be.

Look, maybe it's too early for him, or maybe he's just not in love with the LW. Regardless, this strikes me as a guy looking for an excuse to avoid getting roped into a marriage he either isn't ready for or doesn't want. Maybe he'll change his mind with time, and this "afraid of cheating" nonsense will be forgotten. Or maybe he won't, and the LW will move on. In either case, I wish her the best of luck.