Of course there's something better, someONE who's a better fit for you. Don't drift into a starter marriage because it seems to be the next logical step in the relationship's evolution, or the thing to do because all your friends are doing it. Your head and your gut are telling you that something isn't right - to the degree that you're asking a columnist with an international readership for advice about it. Listen to what your body is telling you.

Take it from someone who made this very mistake a couple of decades ago. Break it off, or steel yourself for years of conflicts and fights about things that no one should have to change. Of COURSE there's someone out there who's a better fit for you - thousands of someones. Give yourself the freedom to explore, to find them. And give your current partner the same opportunity, to find someone they'll be happy with.

I don't mean to be cheesy, but seeing this speech excerpt attributed to "President-Elect Barack Obama, Nov. 4, 2008" just made me tear up a little bit.

He...did it.

From a story in the 11/5/08 Mpls. StarTribune (www.startribune.com):

"With 100 percent of the 4,130 precincts reporting, Coleman had an unofficial margin of 601 votes out of nearly 2.9 million cast. Recounts are required in races with a winning margin of less than one half of 1 percent.

Franken said this morning that he intends to exercise his right to a recount."

Seems to me that this information would have been useful to people so they could make better informed decision. Should anyone actually care about that.

I guess preserving access once again trumped journalistic integrity.

This should cause your church to lose its tax-exempt status, lickety-split.

mr. smith said:

I think there's a bogus assumption in this article: that any candidate for a position will be turned down if he or she does not have a squeaky clean past. I mean no offense to the author of this piece, but that's the kind of polarized thinking that's screwed up this country for the past ten years. Either you're completely clean or you're unacceptably dirty. Bah.

... He's being careful, and I'm glad he's careful about his decisions.

I agree 100%, mr. smith. My perception is that this is a risk assessment activity. All available data is being gathered in order to make a fully informed hiring decision. Given the state of "gotcha!" politics and media coverage these days, can you blame them? C'mon. Given two equally qualified candidates, do you make a job offer to the person whose electronic footprints lead to a) a parenting board, or b) eelporn.com?

I think that public servants have privacy rights.

Agreed, but the Internet isn't private, isn't "anonymous," and any perception that it is, unfortunately, is an illusion. And while the great majority of people don't have the skill, or frankly the time or inclination, to connect all the electronic dots through a person's online handle(s) to their ISP to their real-world identity, the state of "gotcha" politics today has unfortunately created a ready market for this sometimes embarrassing stuff. It makes sense to me that people interviewing for sensitive jobs would be asked for information about their online activity- internet use is just too embedded in citizens' lives.

I strongly suspect that anyone transitioning a McCain presidency would request the same data from its candidates (unless they don't use the internet either). I feel anyone who suggests otherwise is naive.

If you can't lift the bag into the luggage bin yourself, do us all a favor - check the damn thing. Thank you.

Since I cut an imposing figure and do not look wiry and sensitive and do not act like Svutlov, always being apologetic to women, I guess I come off as some thug among artsy women or something.

Another possible interpretation from a personal perspective: It's possible that the reaction you've noticed has absolutely nothing to do with you as an individual. You just happen to be a physically imposing man. Many of us who have been victims of crime may instinctively avoid you because you are male, and physically imposing. You remind us of the man who victimized us. Who hurt us. It's a behavior driven by irrationalty, fear, and self-preservation.

Imagine living in my 105-lb. body instead of yours - less than half your weight, maybe a fourth of your strength - and knowing that a good majority of the world's population could TAKE YOU DOWN if they choose to. In my case, and in the case of hundreds of thousands (millions?) of women who have been assault victims, someone actually did. I carry the physical and emotional scars to this day, and if I see someone who even vaguely reminds me of my attacker, I won't even think about hurting someone's feelings. I'll steer clear.

Another POV.

...Minneapolis StarTribune editorial cartoonist Steve Sack (can't find link right now, sorry).

A red, white and blue-dressed man labelled "U.S. Image" is being waterboarded. Standing beside him, Vice President Dick Cheney says, "To win the fight for civilization we need to redefine torture." U.S. Image, head under water and arms stiff, thinks, "Better redefine 'civilization' while you're at it..."

As tired as Ms. Duggar's hoo-hah must be.

Please don't validate their behavior with even one more Broadstreet pixel. Please.

Back away from the bong, dude.

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Oh, and enjoy the quality time you'll be spending at The Hague.

I find you very, very attractive.