People are making a big deal out of the fact that the LW is hiding her drinking from her husband. For a bunch of supposed liberals, I'm surprised to see no one question the cultural modes that shape our judgements. LW may be hiding her drinking, not because she herself finds it objectionable, but because others (like her husband) will judge her. I'd prefer to think of the LW not as an alcoholic in denial but as a Closeted Drinker among non-drinkers.

I think the Closet metaphor really holds -- gay people who have to hide their desires from family & friends might be more likely to engage in risky, self-destructive behavior; depending on the culture, they may also wish to fundamentally change themselves to make life less of a secretive struggle. But at the same time, it's possible to live a responsible, moral life while still enjoying unabashedly that which gives you pleasure. A big difference lies in whether you find someone like-minded to do it with. Even though I would bet all the people on Salon would abhor anyone denying his or her sexual identity, there's still a strong Puritan streak when it comes to other things that people simply get off on. Telling LW to have a cup of tea instead? Why not tell her to lie back and think of England?

It's funny - compare this incident to the infamous Exit 57 sketch, "Down in the Basement," in which Colbert repeatedly and enthusiastically makes out with Paul Dinello (hopefully it's still up on YouTube). I bet with Fonda it was simply harder to maintain as firm a barrier between his character and himself than it was with Dinello.

And he'll violate the 3rd amendment, too, if either of those secret service guys wants to stay over.

I just want to add another voice to the small chorus of people encouraging LW to seek wisdom. Today's atheists seem to believe that the existential crisis is something new in history, that could only be possible once the comforting foundation of religion has crumbled. But people of all walks of life (and all faiths) have always struggled with the enormity of the universe.

I think that art and literature are the best resources for anyone dealing with this crisis. In the US, where our history and culture are still very young, we look at art as a form of consumable entertainment. Other, older civilizations revere great works of art as timeless sources of truth and wisdom that seem far greater and closer to eternity.

The other thing is that lots of devout religious people in history were tormented BY their faith! Even Augustine wasn't presumptuous enough to ever say with confidence that he was going to heaven. Faith-as-instant-comfort is a rather new invention. Dread of the unknown used to be a component of religion, not something you use religion to relieve!

when it had Dick York and Hayden Rourke.

I heard similar things from an experienced flipper and real estate agent. He had made and lost and made and lost millions, and in the end, it was the interest that did him in. It's not quite the same situation -- he was buying land and doing major renovations or building new houses outright, which required taking out small loans to finance the construction.

Rogers mentions the cash flow problem. Loans can alleviate that temporarily, but it means you have to work FAST, be very organized, and use reliable contractors. If you run into a delay or something snags the process, you can watch your profit simply evaporate into the interest on even a small loan.

If you already know that your social graces need some work, sit back, watch other people, observe and be honest with yourself. Some antisocial nerds end up making their faults into their identities.

Making friends, and social life in general, is like learning how to play a musical instrument. You make mistakes, sometimes the same ones over and over, but you have to learn and practice. It's frustrating, but in the end, you transcend the "mechanical" aspects of the process, and it becomes a joy in itself, and you don't need to think to do it anymore.

...but these just warm my heart and brighten my day. Soon I will begin collecting Hummel figurines and coffee mugs with pictures of cats in angel costumes.

And yet I hate Opus.

Humans will always be cheaper and more convenient for fulfilling these needs.

"The plain fact," Pollan charges, is that "the chronic diseases that now kill most of us can be traced directly to the industrialization of our food."

In the Western world, people are living longer, more children are surviving, and infectious disease is no longer the leading cause of death. That means that not only are people living long enough to eventually succumb to chronic disease, but there is also more diverse genetic representation of people who have higher risk factors regardless of diet. In other words, early deaths from infectious diseases used to mask the genetic susceptibility to chronic disease that those people would have gotten anyway, had they lived long enough. Western science's understanding of chronic disease, and of genetics, is extraordinarily young, but the overwhelming majority of evidence-supported study continues to point to genetic causes for chronic disease.

If it were someday possible to take some sort of "genetic vaccine" against heart disease, diabetes, etc., and ensure that you could eat whatever you wanted without any increased risk -- would that change Pollan's concept of what we should eat? Absolutely not. That's because it's not actually an argument about health or mortality, it's an aesthetic argument! Food is amazing, delicious, sensual, wonderful, with millions of ways to be enjoyed, regardless of its nutritional value. Unfortunately, enjoying anything for its own sake is not allowed in this culture. Everything must be couched in health rhetoric, moral hand-wringing and fear of death.