"Mr. Mower tracked their sex life in a notebook he kept in his nightstand."

"He drew a chart and filled in different-shaped dots to represent various scenarios: He initiated sex but was declined. They planned on sex but didn't follow through. They actually had sex. Mr. Mower says he was rebuffed 95% of the time; his wife says his memory is highly subjective. He became grumpy, gained weight and stopped wanting to come home at night. 'For me to feel good about myself, I needed her to have sex with me,' he says. 'Otherwise I thought she didn't love me.'"

From a WSJ article titled "How Often Should Married Couples Have Sex?/When He Says 'More' And She Says No," linked by Instapundit with the line: "It’s the whole maintenance sex discussion again. As usual, the MSM is just catching up with InstaPundit."

I say: It's fine to recommend having sex just because your partner wants it, but I'm afraid there are some really unappealing sex-wanting partners out there. Remember this one was ready to out himself in the Wall Street Journal — keeping a graph in the nightstand, going into passive-aggressive mode. Hello? She's not attracted to you! And your solution is to become more and more unattractive? (Pic at link: Beard without a mustache?!)

In the story, the man reads a book called "The Passionate Marriage," decides he needs to "let myself feel what I really felt," and gives her the book to read. She says, we're told, that "reading a book about sex made her feel sexy." Well, at least the book made her feel sexy.

By the way, he's a blogger. Connect the dots. Why is he telling this grisly story and posing for bare-lipped photos in the WSJ? I presume it's a book project.

"Across the country, the business of growing pot is fast becoming mainstream."

Says the Wall Street Journal:

But it turns out that trying to make a profit in this business is harder than expected. When grown and sold legally, marijuana can be an expensive proposition, with high startup costs, a host of operational headaches and state regulations that a beet farmer could never imagine. In Colorado, for example, managers must submit to background checks that include revealing tattoos. The state also requires cameras in every room that has plants; Mr. Klug relies on 48 of them....

When grown and sold legally?! Why is the Wall Street Journal writing that? You can't grow and sell marijuana legally. This is all a crime under federal law.

Prices for pot, meanwhile, have plummeted, in large part because of growing competition. And bank financing is out of the question: Federal law doesn't allow these businesses, and agents sometimes raid growers even in states where it is legal.

Doesn't allow? You mean: Makes it a felony. Growing marijuana is a criminal enterprise. And there are no "states where it is legal." It is illegal in all of the states under federal law. The states are in the United States — haven't you heard?!

... Pink House Blooms is a $3 million-a-year business, with 2,000 plants in a converted warehouse in an industrial part of Denver... To get started on this scale, [Elliott] Klug says he sank more than $3 million — some of it borrowed from family — into the operation. He says Pink House Blooms is profitable, with demand up 30% some months....

His advice for anyone who wants to become rich by legally dealing pot: "Start with lots of money."

Shouldn't that be: Start by not worrying about what "legally" means? This man is attracting attention, getting his name and these big numbers in print in the WSJ, which presumably loves to profile the risk-takers of business.

Last December, President Barack Obama said his administration had "bigger fish to fry" than going after recreational users. 

Nice for the recreational users to know they aren't big enough, but what solace is that for the man trying to become rich by dealing pot? He is trying to be the big fish. He's trying to get rich in a market that anyone who refuses to commit crimes cannot enter. What a terrible situation! And yet the prices are already plummeting, we're told, because of all the competition. Klug's hope of getting rich is premised on the illegality.

The WSJ should not have allowed a high school senior to harm her future self...

... by publishing an op-ed attributing her college rejections to her nonpossession of diversity factors — says Kira Goldenberg in the Columbia Journalism Review.

Pity the well-off white girl who has not had to struggle with identity politics or face prejudice because of who she is (wait until she realizes the “real world” still has a glass ceiling). Blaming groups that lack the inherent privilege of caucasian heterosexuals for your own bad luck in a crapshoot is a gross distortion of affirmative action, which is imperfect but remains necessary, in some form, as long as historical inequities persist. And considering the Supreme Court was hearing gay marriage cases last week, persist they do.

Goldenberg purports to care about Suzy Lee Weiss's potentially regrettable "youthful contribution to her Google search results, one that eternally allows future employers and boyfriends to find her arguing against affirmative action and disdaining diversity." Goldenberg says the WSJ was "irresponsible" to allow this naive child to display herself on the internet as "bitter" and "egocentric."

Goldenberg is, ironically, also displaying herself on the internet, and I'd say she's displaying herself as overaggressive and unfair. I just read Weiss's op-ed and it's lighthearted and self-effacing — the opposite of egocentric. She's saying I'm an ordinary kid with nothing special to put on my application, and then she mocks herself for being "[a]n underachieving selfish teenager," chattering out a bunch of phony excuses, and she signs off saying that she needs to go watch TV.

I wouldn't be surprised if Weiss shares Goldenberg's attitude about diversity policies. It seems to me that Goldenberg flipped out at one line — "If it were up to me, I would've been any of the diversities" — and completely lost her capacity to perceive humor.

Talk about embarrassing yourself on the internet!