Charter Member of the Sub-Media

July 30, 2008

Rally Driving « Car Issues »

Check out this video:

It just didn't look to me like he was taking the most efficient route some of the time.

I fully understand the traction issues. Growing up and learning to drive in Montana, if I wasn't driving on ice, I was usually driving on gravel or dirt. I used to "drift" (I called it "powersliding" through gravel roads in my 1968 Pontiac Tempest. I had a friend who opened my eyes to the excitement of "drifting" (again, he didn't call it that) between construction warning barrels on an ice-covered road in a 70s Datsun 210 (Bumblebee? I think). I couldn't come close to what he did on ice, but I did end up with an instinctual feel for recovering from a fishtail.

The roads I powerslid on were much narrower than the Pike's Peak track, but I feel like I did a better job of aligning myself for the next acceleration.

Then again, I was doing it between 30 and 60mph, I would admit probably mostly on the 30mph end (although I really wan't paying attention to the speedometer, to be honest...maybe I was doing it more at 20 mph, or 50. No way to know, now), and this guy is doing it more 60-80mph, right? And I didn't have anything close to his hp, acceleration, or car twitchiness. Maybe that makes a bigger difference than I would think.

I've played a few rallying video games. I'm not that good, not that bad. I don't persist because you have to drive by your visual cues, and when I'm dirt running (I've never raced...), I drive by feel as much as by sight.

I cannot describe the feel of knowing you are losing traction (can't say adhesion on dirt/gravel) and knowing you can of course brake slightly, but also sensing that if you just lightly accelerate, you'll pull the car back in line...

I've done it in both rear-wheel drive AND front-wheel drive cars (the preceding paragraph being a front-wheel drive experience), but separated by about 15 years in between, so I couldn't begin to guess what the commonality and difference is between the drives. Early on, I did end up doing a 180 in the front-wheel drive once because I didn't come out of the turn right; I'm guessing because
I was using RWD reactions? In any case, I learned and it never happened again.

I wondered at the time if I could have been a good Rally racer, but already had a career and was probably too old to boot (past 35), so it never got to be more than a passing thought.

Let's make this interminable missive more massive:
My dirt-running experiences are about 2% of the reason I've hesitated to really pull the trigger on any one of a number of Poor Man's BMWs. If I can have so much fun in a '68 Tempest or '94 Corolla on dirt, am I really going to have as much fun in a Maxima SE or Mazda3 on pavement? You don't encounter police on back country dirt roads, but you do on paved roads; I'm probably never going to get the full acceleration/traction fun on blacktop.


Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 29, 2008

Finagle « Aphorisms »
Finagle's Fourth Law: Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it only makes it worse.
-- Unknown

Dangit: I accidentally deleted Dave's comment. It was the observation that I seem to have picked up a blogstalker.
...movable type's anti-spam system really isn't very good.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 04:49 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

July 27, 2008

Here's Another Project I'm Going to Kick Off « Blogging »

Got anything you want reviewed?

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 11:48 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 26, 2008

Liberals and Democracy « Politics As Usual »

Some liberals apparently hate it with a passion.

It's not the right type of democracy, you see.

Democracy is only allowed when it affirms liberal tropes, not when it denies them.

Ireland and the working class of Europe has already experienced this with the EU "Constitution".

Sure, it's not all liberal elites who do this, or support this, or even feel this way.

But: lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. Liberals always lecture conservatives on people we reject who nonetheless claim to be conservatives as if they represent the entire conservative movement. Liberals don't even attempt to denounce this sort of anti-democracy detailed in the link, from what I've seen.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:12 AM | Comments (1699) | TrackBack (0)

July 25, 2008

Dems and the Public Trough « Politics As Usual »

I have believed, for quite some time now, that the driving force behind Democratic Party politicians eagerness for social programs was a thinly-veiled vote-buying scheme.

After some thought, it hit me the other day that for a non-insignificant (although perhaps not even reaching a plurality) portion of Democratic Party elites, the true intention is that if you provide money, you can attach strings. Thus, feeding the populace from the public trough becomes yet another way of controlling the unwashed masses.

For me, from now on, the D stands for Domestication.

Read More "Dems and the Public Trough" »

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 07:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 24, 2008

Eagle Vision TSi « Car Issues »

The full article, with comments from other readers and pictures, is over here.

The plain text follows:
Back when I was in high school, I remember noticing just how badly space was wasted in cars. Small cars could seat five passengers, and a large car could likewise seat five; the big differences in exterior size dwarfed the small differences in interior space. A few years later, I read about Chrysler's push towards "cab forward" design, pushing the cabin forward in the chassis for better space utilization. Other car manufacturers had toyed with the idea, but apparently Chrysler was planning to dive right in and redo their whole car line based on the concept.

I was excited, because it made sense--better stability and handling, sleeker lines, and best of all, maximum room for people and minimum space dedicated for the machine. I foresaw the Colt becoming a sleek little speedster-ish coupe. I imagined beautiful cars revitalizing the whole Mopar line. I was mostly a Ford fan at the time, but I liked the idea of the underdog Chrysler brands putting out some decent products for a change.

They fulfilled their promise, at least in my eyes, when they unveiled the Dodge Intrepid. I fell in love with that car at first sight. It looked like a sporty sedan should look like; it looked like the automotive version of an F-5 Freedom Fighter. Best of all, from what I can remember of reviews from the time, it didn't suck. That alone was a victory for Chrysler.

One semi-immutable rule of car manufacturing is that when you have a decent car (and even when you don't), you re-badge it with minor modifications to match your established brands. For the Intrepid, this meant that a slightly higher-tech version was designed and sold as the Eagle Vision. The Vision is just a little bit more of a sports sedan than the Intrepid, a little more technologically advanced, and featured a slightly different front fascia/hood design that just made it look tougher and more menacing. I loved it.

My favorite Vision was the 1996 edition, with the 3.5-liter V-6 engine. Of course, back then I was far more ignorant about cars and performance than I am now (he said modestly), so during the time I was caught up in lust, all I could really tell you about the Vision is that I really, really liked its appearance, and it probably had some gee-whiz techno tweaks on it.

Now, however, having done the research, I have a much better grasp of its features.

* Automatic Stick: The ability to control gear shifts without a clutch is commonplace now, but at the time was only available on exotics. You'd think new technology like this would be fraught with malfunctions, but apparently Chrysler engineered it well enough to avoid a pratfall with the shifting.
* 214-horsepower, 3.5-liter V-6: This engine pushed the Vision 0-60 in 8 seconds (fair) and returned 17/22 mpg (ugh! ...but par for the course in those days).
* Anti-lock four-wheel disc brakes: ABS was part and parcel for upscale cars at the time, and all sports sedan manufacturers know you need great brakes to get out of trouble.
* Gas shocks and stabilizers: These increased its stability and maneuverability.
* Anti-fog heating elements in side mirrors
* Keyless entry: This is nearly a standard feature now, but that wasn't the case a decade ago.

Interestingly, the TSi's 16-inch wheels were an upgrade over the standard 15s; at the time those were considered a useful upgrade for handling and comfort, but now those are either standard or slightly small for a sports sedan. I've read some complaints about road noise and, as should be expected, the more the car is tweaked toward firm handling, the more you feel the bumps.

Still, the Eagle Vision was a credible mid-size family sports sedan. It wasn't exorbitantly expensive (about $23k new), and offered an enjoyable driving experience comparable to much more expensive mid-level European sports sedans. That wasn't what Americans expected from a U.S. car manufacturer, which is probably why the car failed to garner much interest from the buying public.

Given that, you probably won't be surprised to hear there aren't that many available these days. One online search yielded only 21 for sale in the whole United States, and that's all years and all trim levels. Prices ranged from $700 to more than $7,000, which seems a bit high, but I have no idea how these cars age mechanically. I would probably test drive one just for the fun of it, but there isn't a single one for sale within 600 miles of my location. I don't know if that's a result of self-destructing build quality or merely are result of the Vision's scarcity.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 05:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Roster Guesses « Kansas City Chiefs »

Offense (25) The offense is mostly set, with the only starting battles at RG, RT, and #2 WR. The rest is a battle of backups.

QB (3): Brodie Croyle, Tyler Thigpen, Damon Huard

Bubble/Practice Squad: None

Rationale: Croyle is the man. Thigpen needs whatever snaps remain to be a credible replacement for Croyle. Huard doesnt need anything, and likely showed some age-related decline and fragility last year. Hes an emergency QB now. Greene was cut before camp even started, leaving no one to challenge the QBs on the roster. The only uncertainty is who will be the actual game-day backup to Croyle.

RB (3): Larry Johnson, Jamaal Charles, Kirby Smith

Bubble/Practice Squad: none/Savage

Rationale: While Savage and Battle are decent enough to make most NFL teams, the Chiefs are just too deep for these guys to make the team. If one makes the practice squad, it would probably be savage, just because his NFL potential is still not determined, and thus theoretically unlimited.

FB: Oliver Hoyte

Bubble/Practice Squad: Mike Cox/Mike Cox

Rationale: Despite being a converted LB, Hoyte actually has NFL playing time as FB. Despite his experience in Chan Gaileys system, Cox does not. This is a pretty close battle, however, and could go either way. I do think if Cox doesnt make the final roster, he goes to the practice squad; whereas if Cox makes the team, Hoyte is completely gone. I dont think anyone else (Jackson, Manderino) really has much chance.

TE (3): Tony Gonzalez, Brad Cottam, Michael Allan

Bubble/Practice Squad: none/Michael Merritt (injured)

Rationale: While Cottams size and corresponding strength/leverage should help him be an outstanding blocker, I think he was drafted to replace and back up Gonzalez presence in the passing game. Gailey isnt known for using tight ends, but he is known for strong running attacks combined with innovative passing; TonyG is a key to both of those, and Gailey is the guy to take advantage of his abilities. But Gonzalez is aging, and you dont want to have the offense crippled if he goes down for a week or two. Hence, the drafting and development of both Cottam and Allan. Allan is a good receiver with the size to be a good blocker. Cottam is naturally a gifted blocker with the hands and speed to be a game-changing receiver. The handwriting is on the wall, and it tells me Gailey is embracing the TE position as a flexible blocker/receiver. Foschi isnt skilled enough to be a threat in both roles. Neither is Merritt, and with his injury keeping him off the field, theres no one to challenge these three.

WR (5): Dwayne Bowe, Jeff Webb, David Darling, Will Franklin, Kevin Robinson (I predict will double as P/KR)

Bubble/Practice Squad: Bobby Sippio/Maurice Price

Rationale: Bowe has a slot sewn up. Webb showed improvement last year. He ended the year starting two games, and caught 7 passes for 68 yards in those two games, which shows he was starting to build some rapport with Croyle. Darling has similar career stats and perhaps more upside, but Webb has shown flashes of starting potential (he went 7 for 78 against the Bengals with Huard behind Center), whereas Darling really hasnt. Webb did have some lapses last year (a damaging drop or two in critical spots, and a very significant failure to get his second foot in bounds against Green Bay), but his experiences as a key backup and starter last year, and Croyles familiarity with Webb will probably give him the edge over Darling. Franklin and Robinson both have the potential to surprise and leapfrog both Webb and Darling. The days of the Sippio experiment are probably at an end. Maurice Price also gets lost in a numbers game, and the other unknowns (to include the two last-second signings) are probably camp fodder with zero chance.

OT (4): Branden Albert, Damion McIntosh, Herb Taylor, Barry Richardson

Bubble/Practice Squad: Anthony Alabi/Shackleford

Rationale: The top three are pretty much locks to make the team. Richardson could play his way off the team, making room for Alabi by default. Svitek hasnt shown enough and has been too injured to make anyone think he deserves a roster spot. There isnt anyone else with enough intriguing upside to make the team. Yeah, Im talking about you, Leffew and Shackleford.

G (3): Brian Waters, Adrian Jones, Rob Smith

Bubble/Practice Squad: No one, unless a T shifts inside to G

Rationale: Waters is a lock, Jones gets RG almost by default, and Smith makes the team because theres no one else on the roster who looks good enough to push Smith off the team. Has anyone heard anything at all about Edwin Harrison? Me neither. If I were coach, Id consider going with only 2 Gs and taking an extra T. Maybe the Will Svitek experiment could try him inside at G?

C (2): Rudy Niswanger, Wade Smith

Bubble/Practice Squad: none/none

Rationale: There is literally no one on the roster after these two. Smith makes the team, not only because you dont want to depend on a player who has never played C in the NFL and ended the last season with a knee injury, but also because Smith can play any position along the line at a mediocre level. In fact, Smith could end up being the backup at both G spots.

K: Conner Barth

Bubble/Practice Squad: Nick Novak/none

Rationale: Barth showed mental toughness coming back from a horrible sophomore year slump. Novaks history of bouncing around the league doesnt hurt him, but I think Barth has the edge by dint of being new, on top of his mental toughness. No one makes the practice squad because no one carries a kicker on the practice squad.

KR: (Kevin Robinson and/or Jamaal Charles)

PR: (Kevin Robinson)

Bubble/Practice Squad: BJ Sams/none

Rationale: I think Robinson will make the team as the primary K/PR because P/KR seems to be a young mans game: most returners lose effectiveness later in their career, and Sams is coming off multiple injuries. Moreover, Robinson is the NCAAs career all-purpose yardage leader, contributing almost as much at WR as at KR for Utah State, meaning that Robinson has much more upside as a full-time player than Sams. But if Sams fully recovers from injuries and hasnt succumbed to age, he could steal the spot. No practice squad for this position; Robinson makes the team or is snatched by another team. But we have enough potential returners who can contribute at other spots; theres no reason to have a dedicated returner this year.

Defense (26)

CB (5): Brandon Flowers, Brandon Carr, Patrick Surtain, Rashad Barksdale, Tyron Brackenridge

Bubble/Practice Squad: Maurice Leggett/Maurice Leggett

Rationale: Yeah, I think we may end up starting two rookie CBs, with Surtain the first guy off the bench. Rashad Barksdale makes the team because hes unually big for his speed (or unusually fast for his size) but inexperienced, meaning he still has huge upside. Dmitri Patterson was decent last year, but has two many years in the league to really have much chance of showing anything, so wont make the team. Brackenridge played very well at times last year, and still has the chance for significant improvement that Patterson doesnt. Will Poole is just like Patterson, only older: cut. Maurice Leggett has impressed the coaches and may take Brackenridges spot.

S (4): Jarrad Page, DuJuan Morgan, Bernard Pollard, John McGraw

Bubble/Practice Squad: Khayyam Burns

Rationale: Page, Morgan, and Pollard are locks to make the team. The only uncertainty is if Morgan replaces Pollard, and I think he will by game 4, if not by the end of camp. McGraw makes the team due to canny experience and special teams play. But the #4 spot is wide open: Ive heard a few hints about Burns being a potential surprise, and Ron Girault is a blank slate who could be a sleeper or merely camp fodder.

LB (7): Derrick Johnson, Donnie Edwards, Demorrio Williams, Napoleon Harris, Nate Harris, Pat Thomas, Steve Octavien

Bubble/Practice Squad: Weston Dacus, LeRue Rumph

Rationale: This is the most intriguing competition of the whole team. Johnson and Edwards are locks to be startersbut what position? Conventional wisdom says DJ would play better as the Weakside LB, but conventional wisdom also says DJ gets the Strongside position because theres no one else. Napoleon Harris is the MLB incumbent, but despite good stats, missed some easy tackles and misread too many plays. Edwards could end up moving to MLB with Williams taking over at WLB. Then again, Edwards may be too old to be a full-time, 16-game starter. Nate Harris filled in for Nap Harris last year; he clearly looked lost before the snap, but performed decently while the ball was in play. Then again, Pat Thomas (a final cut-down steal by Herm Edwards last year) is reportedly looking good and may leapfrog both Harrises for the starting MLB spot. But Nate Harris was considered to have considerable upside before last years draft by being a top player banished to a small college due to circumstance; it would not be a shock if he made the leap of ability to become a starter by the end of camp this year. And yet, Octavien, Rumph, and Dacus also have that same sort of reputation this year as Nate Harris did last year, and Harris could get caught up in a numbers game where a one year of experience was only enough to show the coaches they dont really want to put in the effort on you anymore. But the reality is also that Kris Griffin, Rich Scanlon, and Nick Reid also had this same sort of buzz around them that all these young guys now have, and look how they turned out. Or didnt, actually. E.J. Kuale is probably camp fodder because hes been in the leauge too long to suddenly elevate his play to challenge for a roster spot. I give the edge to Octavien because he had better numbers in college than anyone else despite playing through lots of injuries. Assuming he has fully recovered and will no longer be injury-prone, he has the biggest upside of any of our prospects. Dacus has better total numbers due to more games starting, but was more of a steady college producer, rather than a potential NFL game-changer. Im ready to be surprised by who stands up and stands out.

DE (4): Tamba Hali, Turk McBride, Brian Johnston, Alfonso Boone

Bubble/Practice Squad: Johnny Dingle

Rationale: Ive heard little about Dingle lately, but even less about Trevor Johnson or Jason Parker. Hali, McBride, and even Johnston are locks because there just really isnt anyone else. Unlike many other people, I figure the switch to DE for Boone is a done deal. Hes reportedly lost weight to make the switch, and that shows commitment; aside from that, there really isnt anyone else. Boone wore down last year at DT and wasnt really effective the last half of the season. That indicates he might have been playing above his ideal weight. Losing weight can make a decent DT turn into a speedy enough DE, but well see. Our future lies in how well Hali transitions to the RE, how well McBride steps up as a (near) full-time DE, and how Johnston develops at LE. That leaves Boone to either be a pleasant surprise or wrap up his NFL career; either way, we shouldnt depend on him.

DT (4): Glenn Dorsey, Tank Tyler, Ron Edwards, T. J. Jackson

Bubble/Practice Squad: Derek Lokey, Maurice Murray

Rationale: If there is a reason to let Dingle be the #4 DE and have Boone move back inside, it is because of the lack of prospects at DT. Edwards is young enough to still produce, but his abilities are established at mediocre. Ive heard some good things about Jackson, but not much. I havent heard a thing about Lokey or Murray. Thus, Ive got Jackson at the #4 spot by default, but that could easily change.

P: Dustin Colquitt

Bubble/Practice Squad: None

Rationale: There is only one punter. Nuff said.

LS: Jean-Philippe Darche

Bubble/Practice Squad: None

Rationale: Darche is almost as much of a fixture as Colquitt.

If you do the math, thats just 51 players. Theres a method to my madness. First, the positions where the competition is the deepest are the areas we are already dedicating most of the roster spots and cant carry the bubble players: WR, LB, RB, CB. Second, the areas where we could use an extra player are really the least deep in terms of talent: DE, DT, G, FB. Finally, 2 players who are challenging for a significant contributing role this year did not enter camp for us last year, but were other teams draft picks snatched from the waiver wire as they tried to sneak the players on to their practice squad: Thigpen and Barksdale. That was a pretty clever move that I expect Herm to attempt again this year (we actually did that with 3 players, but only 2 stuck). Anticipating that move, I will leave two spots open.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 04:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 23, 2008

Still Sorta Busy « Blogging »

Work has been busy, and I haven't had as much time to post as I've been slowly working things out with my wife.

I also mentioned having some other projects going on.

This is one of them. Enjoy!

I only have one official article. They weren't able to link the 3-4 articles I did as a guest, but you can search through the archives for them.

But don't bother; they are all posted on this blog under "car issues".

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:00 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

July 17, 2008

New Favorite Guitar for Collecting/Playing « Music/Guitar »

I think I'm in love with Fernandes Guitars.

I picked up a brand new Fernandes Revolver X for just $100. But I let a Revolver Pro get away because I wasn't willing to spend $300 when I could get the X for only a third the price.

...since then, I've learned of my error.

The Pro model has the Sustainer, which is an electronic, controllable feedback device. Meaning you can get the overdriven feedback harmonics without a Marshall Stack turned on "Bleeding Eardrums" volume level.

Ah, well, I still only bought the X to sell it, since other new ones were selling for $350 (and still are).

But then the more I played it, the more I loved it. I hated the sound at first, it sounded too much like the 70s Les Paul (a sound I don't like much). But I found ways to alter the tone slightly. The fretboard is awesome. Quality/workmanship is great. The tremolo system is the most rock-solid I've ever used. Remember, tremolo wizard Brad Gillis (Night Ranger) played on a Fernandes. (Update: um, he endorsed Fernandes, but he might never have ever used them on an album...I'm trying to look into it...)

I'm just amazed that it is this good of a guitar for just $100. I would be impressed with it at $350.

Then I ended up picking up another Fernandes, a Monterey X, on eBay, because I figured some people would screw up the selling and list one under "Fernandez". I was right. I got the Monterey for $180, and it has an awesome finish, even better action than the Revolver, and better sound. I like it quite a bit. I think these guitars will be highly sought after in a few decades. I plan on playing these two (and others I collect) for the whole time.

After all, the point is not to sell them, but to brag about how you got such a great guitar for such a cheap price, and no, you won't sell it.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 10:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 15, 2008

Attacks on the Blog, and Comments « Blogging »

I'm dealing with a particularly virulent attack of nasty comments.
Movable Type isn't that good at blocking stuff.
Which means I do a search multiple times per day for this crap, and mass delete.
But going by the blacklist usually doesn't work, because it's too easy for them to come up with new stuff that doesn't match the blacklist. So I just search for everything, and then don't check the real comments.

Unfortunately, that method isn't perfect.

I've already accidentally deleted one comment from Mr. Lady, and one from myself. Maybe one from Diamond Dave, too...

So if your comment gets deleted, don't be offended, just repost it. Cursing me out in the new comment is optional, but accepted.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 08:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Gender Wars: When Men Don't Marry « Stuff Important to Me »

The big elephant I do not remember anyone else mentioning is this:

All women believe they deserve love and devotion within a marriagebut they dont think every man does.

It is often said that a 35+ year-old female gets desperate because all of the good ones have been taken. I do not see women truly looking at themselves and thinking: Im not married because all of the good women were chosen first. Im a reject. Im a leftover.

What, exactly, is a good one when it comes to husband, after all?

Obviously, it isnt the quality of a mans love and/or devotion, or there wouldnt be so many men rejected out-of-hand. I wish I had realized this two marriages ago.

I wonder if it has anything to do with money?

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 04:35 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Interesting article here exploring Constitutional Originalism.

For me, the answer is simple: We shouldnt respect the original meaning of the Constitution simply because the forefathers wrote them, i.e., they werent omniscient Gods. We should, however, respect the original meaning of the Constitution in order to be consistent with the Rule of Law. The forefathers werent infallible, but they did think about everything they wrote into the Constitution. They werent short-sighted or ignorant. They considered, and fought, and argued, and consulted, and the result of the entire mess was a dang good document that has served us well for decades upon decades. I do not say centuries, because I think it was under FDR that the Supreme Court stopped depending on the original intent, and started enacting social justice based on what the Justices thought was the right thing to rule. Which is, by definition, Rule of Man. The system hasnt collapsed, of course far from it! but the integrity of the Constitution has been compromised by activist* Justices who make rulings based on socio-political desires, foreign caselaw, and current trends (imagined and otherwise) of current societal opinion.

*By activist Justice, Im not using the current Democrat/liberal meaning of handing down a ruling I dont like; Im using the original meaning of the phrase, which means: sidestepping the Constitutional methods of revising the Constitution by penumbras and similar legal and/or semantic games in order to produce new Law or interpretations of Law that satisfy socio-political ideology.

The Constitution is a Contract between the People and the Government, and among the Peoples. The Supreme Court should not legislate from the bench, no matter how popular the issue. If it is so pressing to have a new interpretation of original Law, the Constitution provides for its own amending. We should stick to that.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 04:33 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

July 14, 2008

Bagged and Tagged « Stuff Important to Me »

In this episode of Ask Dr. Helen, Dr. Helen responds to a guy asking about long-term bachelor-hood by saying that 10% of the population simply should never be married.

After many years of painful experience, Ive finally decided (realized?) that probably Im one of them.

Im excellent at attracting women, but lousy at keeping them.

But Im already in a marriage. To a wife who is deeply unhappy in our life, and deeply dissatisfied with me as a husband. I am willing and eager to change myself to help create an environment that will be more conducive to happiness, but I apparently have significant shortcomings that I am unable to overcome. And in retrospect, it is these same shortcomings that have contributed to the failure of every romantic relationship Ive had.

now, it is just barely possible that Ive merely found the wrong women.

But I find that to be increasingly unlikely, the more I understand women.

I am weak in a relationship, passive. I dont want to offend or be overbearing, but have gone too far in the other direction. Im a nice guy, and try hard, but women cannot respect a doormat. And yet, a doormat I am, and a doormat I shall probably always be. As best as I can tell, it comes from:

1) A deliberate, conscious attempt to eliminate the negatives of a typical male (callousness, infidelity, tendency to use violence to express anger)

2) A mother who was unable to control her anger, leaving me terrified of female rage

3) A mother who was unable to control her anger, which has resulted in my inability to establish proper boundaries of self and self-respect, in the clinically-identified typical response to emotional abuse

4) A genuine reluctance to impose my preferences on someone else, arising from a focus on being with someone as a source of happiness, rather than a personal need/desire to engage in any specific activity or pursue any specific life goal.

So, if I am correct and I shouldnt have ever gotten married, what do I do now?

Its quite possible the situation may resolve itself naturally, i.e., she decides to bail. If so, your proper response should be congratulations, not condolences, k?

Why don't I bail?

A combination of my sense of responsibility and hope.

Show Comments »

Posted by Nathan at 05:41 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)