Does sound like a midlife crisis. He probably still loves you, but he is lost. Cary's letter wanders about, probably because it is extremely hard to make suggestions without knowing the particulars of your relationship. I would guess that your husband does not perceive his daily life positively and that he doesn't see the future bringing substantial changes. Each day is grey, but isn't life supposed to be in color? He may have been thinking about this for some time, and the thoughts simply wore him down. What to do? Well, certainly seeing a marriage counselor is an excellent idea, but your husband probably needs to figure out which way is up for himself as well and suggesting seeing a therapist on his own isn't a bad idea. Note that not all marriage counselors know what they are doing, so keep that in mind during your sessions. In your interactions with your husband, I would suggest being firm, but do not push him away (don't start dividing the assets), as that will definitely not help. You are likely in for a rough year, try not to despair.

It may be that the school that is farther north is in Minneapolis-St. Paul. The winters up here longer than some, but don't just judge a US city by its proximity to Canada. The Twin Cities are in fact a great place to live, fun with lots of interesting things to do, although they might not be for you because of the other reasons in your letter.

The desperation of Texas democrats to have some say in the presidential election illustrates the major problem with the Electoral College. Texas democrats will not have any voice in the general election, and it will be extraordinarily frustrating for those folks. The system isn't going to be easy to change, given entrenched political interests, but the state-by-state approach is simply not representative enough.

Despite what some might think, folks in the States really are this shallow. Doesn't take anything away from Sen. Obama, it is just the way it is. Just like relative attractiveness of 'mature' men vs. 'mature' women (think 50 years old). Perhaps someday we will get past this, but I doubt it.

In the future it would probably be better to ignore this bit of 'punditry' rather than spread it around. This preoccupation is basically a social disease and is best discussed as such, if at all.

I wish there was a way I could make money from the willful ignorance displayed here and by many of the general public. Our weekly departmental seminar (at the major Univ. where I am work) is focused on ways of reducing the effects of CO2 induced global warming. Every single speaker comes in with their own independently collected data set and shows how the earth is generally getting warmer (there are cold patches), how much CO2 their particular bit of the environment could potentially absorb, and how much CO2 would be released if some other land management decision was made. The problem is that there is very little biogeochemists or environmental biologists can do to substantively affect CO2 levels, when compared to human effects.

Much of the conservation work done by wildlife biologists and ecologists is at risk by global warming, and these folks are trying to figure out if there is something they can do to save the things that they love. Meanwhile, much of the general public is lost in the wilderness of disbelief and many of the politicians are bought by big money. My research is not directly applicable to global warming, but I wish there was a way I could tap into the willful ignorance that many proudly display to fund my work. At least there would be something positive gained by this foolishness.

The rapidity of ice loss at the poles has frequently been faster than anticipated. Since ice loss is self-reinforcing, there is reason to be concerned that things are moving faster than predicted.

There is only going to be one Democratic presidential candidate. Hopefully the two candidates will know how to act gracefully, whichever roles they end up with. It would be great if their respective supporters could also reign in their gloating or disappointment.

Romney's presentation should remind them that there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans. Not voting for the Democratic presidential candidate this fall because they aren't your favorite is a great way to ensure continued foolishness at the national level, for years to come.

It was a foolish response, both for the nomination and in the long run. For the nomination, the response makes it appear that the Clinton campaign has scored points, on things that are without merit. For the long haul, if we cannot unite the Democratic party, how is going to be possible to unite the nation? While the Clinton campaign has not been all that I would hope, the Republicans are certainly not going to be sweetness and light. Michelle Obama needs to realize this was a mistaken response and move forward. Getting stuck in the nomination confrontation mentality does not benefit the Obama campaign, the democratic party or the nation.

Edwards has a solid progressive message. While he is probably a better speaker in a courtroom setting than at a rally, the bigger problem for him was personality politics. The relentless emphasis on vapid details rather than policy and potential.