I'm a second year associate in a big firm, I make 2-3 times as much as my professor partner. She loves her job, I tolerate, and sometimes enjoy mine.

She feels guilty that she doesnt make as much money, and can't help support us as much. I'm happy to put in the time and work to earn enough to make us comfortable, and make sure she can afford to do something she loves.

We're a team, and money isn't the only factor.

Don't go to law school because someone else wants you to make money. Find someone who wants you to be happy.

I actually found the Time article through CNN.com, after seeing a video clip there about a woman who attended a fraternity party, got drunk, and was filmed having sex with people there. The video ended up on the internet, and the woman transferred colleges and later tried to kill herself.

It was interesting to read Cox's story on the heels of a story about someone who had done something she said she was pressured to do against her consent, and was very uncomfortable with afterward.

I suppose there is some veracity to Cox's point, I can imagine doing crazy things when drunk, but there are some things that I just can't imagine doing under any circumstance that would be described as consciousness, but in the end, it seems that people do in fact get out of control, and we should try to make sure that this can happen, so they don't let it happen to them against their will.

As for the boy's issue, I think we don't see the headline because we assume that men think with their penises, and that it's a foregone conclusion that they will have sex given the opportunity, and are less at risk both emotionally and physically.

That's not always true, but it sure isn't going to get any better if we keep ignoring the fact that men are part of the equation.

I'm with Morgan and Xema. As someone who has been known to appreciate butches and short haircuts, I'm not sure this is about gay so much as it is about ugly.

That hair was not good, and should not be repeated.

You say a manly swagger and the perpetually perplexed eyes of person who doesn't understand how big the world really is.

Sound like any other boob we know?

Why is that the people who are always tauting the virtues of free markets and capitalist systems cry "Foul!" and "not fair!" and "he did it first!" whenever they work in a way that those people don't like.

In this case, Imus is neither being censored (he does still have a radio show, after all) nor is he being "punished" per se. I'd prefer to see this as a simple case of market forces at work. MSNBC realized, after a few major sponsors pulled out, that Imus' comments were unpopular (which means by the way, that they DID offend a lot of people) and that Imus is no longer the money making venture that they (and he) thought he was.

Does that mean that he was wronged? NO! It means that capitalism worked, just as it should, by allowing actions to be be made based on market forces.

As for Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson not being subjected to the same drubbing when they made supposedly similar comments, it seems that the Market has spoken. If all of you Imus defenders don't like it, go tell Adam Smith.

Yep, fish and eggs are a good source of protein, but there are about 700 million people in India (and growing!) who would argue that they are not necessary.

If there is genuinely a concern about availability of protein in the world, then we need to move beyond the fish and worry about population growth in an active way.

Katharine, I really am curious, what is the point of this post. Is it to lambast women with many shoes? Is it to lambast people to celebrate the fact that women have many shoes? (These seem wrong-headed in the day and age where people should have the freedom to do WHATEVER they want.)

Is it to lambast people who make corny puns? (Why do I care?)

Is it to lambast people who make slightly homophobic corny puns? (A reasonable point, but not one that came across.)

Really, I read your post, and I thought about it, but I have no idea why you wrote it and I'd like to.

Thanks.