Number 2, and don't look back. Ah, to be 25 again.

We're all ambivalent about practically everything. It's all over the psych literature, change literature, literature literature. We can't make up our minds worth a damn. We do it externally because we have to in order for the world to function, but in our private worlds of self talk, we go back and forth all the time.

So, you wrote some of those things down and someone else got to see them. What he didn't see was your next set of thoughts about how great hubby was, how much you love that little twinkle in his eye, whatever. He only saw the pendulum swing one way and thought "Aha! it's true, she thinks thus and such about me, how awful!"

If he would do some of his own honest soul searching, he'd certainly come up with a set of dark thoughts about you, certainly more than you'd want to hear, I'm sure. If he was, indeed, being honest, he'd talk about wanting to boff the neighbor, stop listening to you prattle on about the latest reality TV show, or how he doesn't like the way you smell. I don't know, but you get my drift.

My overall point is that he got one side of the story and now he's pissed or sad about it, and self-righteously so. He's almost certainly doing the same thing himself, he just hasn't made the mistake of writing it down or telling you about it.

I'd ask him if he's ever had thoughts about you that were unflattering, negative, hostile, or completely unacceptable. If he says no, he's not ready to see the truth yet. If he can at least acknowledge that everyone is ambivalent, including himself, he might be ready to accept a discussion with you about what your journal really meant.

It's at that point that the healing can begin.

...you nailed it, hon. Exactly.

wrong approach.

I feel a great deal of sensitivity toward this LW. I can strongly relate to her feelings about injustice. You are absolutely correct on that count, my dear: bull-headed pricks too often do get just what they want, not because they are deserving, but only because they are so bull-headed and prickish about it.

Responding to such behavior skillfully is the trick. Skillfulness requires practice, which is what I see you doing right now. I think you'll find that as time goes by, you'll refine your approach from one of spewing out shotgun blasts of anger-filled projectiles to using it more as a surgical instrument intended to actually change other's behavior.

Become a student of those who used anger wisely and very effectively. Reading biographies of Ghandi, Martin Luther King, or other activists who have turned their anger into powerful forces for change might give you ideas about how to do that yourself.

Whatever you do, don't let this go. I sense you are entering a powerful phase in your life. Make your anger work for you, learn to use it with skill, and seek out that assertive place inside of you that will be your ally during this time of discovery.

Most important, don't let anyone talk you out of your anger or tell you that you're wrong for being angry, or acting on your anger. You have the right instinct now, its just your approach that is lacking. Work with it and enjoy the new found part of yourself that anger reveals in us all.

My best wishes to you on your journey.

The level of political ignorance expressed by some of the individuals interviewed for this piece was breathtakingly extraordinary. I thought initially the author was mixing some satirical elements into his piece, but now I'm simply aghast that such uninformed voters will be allowed to...well, vote. No wonder this country has been so deeply divided over the past decade or so. If those who were quoted for this article are in any way representative of the far right's conception of reality, there's little contructive discourse to be had between liberals and conservatives.

but this judge has made significant mistakes before (http://tinyurl.com/cspdvh). It appears the only word we have on the propriety of the judge's current decision was the opinion of the offender's defense attorney. He may be right, but has anyone fact-checked that?

This doesn't justify O'Reilly's producers ambushing and bullying people, but we shouldn't let that overshadow the central issue of releasing sex offenders into the community pending appeal. Was it proper under Florida law in this case? If so, then the public and the media need to settle down and encourage a change to the law or court rule that allowed for the release.

If the release was improper, then perhaps there's a story here that needs further investigation. In any event, sensationalizing what occured (which is O'Reilly's schtick) serves no one and only inflames emotions that interfere with resolving the real problem. Let's get the facts straight first, and then proceed on that basis, sans ambush interviews and useless hyperbole.

has not lead to any of the outcomes feared by many regarding rampant use, widespread addiction, and the attendant problems generally ascribed to drug use and abuse. Instead, drug use across many categories has actually dropped, and the monies spent on investigating, prosecuting, imprisoning, and supervising offenders can now be put to more appropriate use.

Take a look at the study here:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080

I think it's high time (no pun intended) that we look at more rational drug policy in the US. Not that drugs should be legalized, but decriminalization - such as was accomplished in Portugal - may be an appropriate alternative. I'm just glad we're finally having open and level-headed discussion on the topic.