Letters to the Editor
softdog
Published Letters: 271 Editor's Choice: 12
-
Careful Reading Shows Selfish Parents - poly or not.
[Read the article: Scenes from a group marriage]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In making their arguments, some are misrepresenting the article.
The author says the group living occured "Over the next two years" until it fell apart in two divorces. Some comments erroneously claim four years as proof the choice worked. The author say he was "close" to 14 at the end, but he doesn't say it was four years.
The author also doesn't say how long his parents were together, but implies it was far longer than the failed group experiment.
Some discuss this story as if the parents are depicted as being very considerate of the children in the process.
The author makes it clear the kids weren't included in the choice or even informed until they happened:
We were halfway into the camping trip when the six of us kids realized our parents had mixed and matched...One day, as I lay reading on my bed, the girls from the other family came downstairs with moving boxes in their arms...I found out it was ending one day, after a tennis lesson, when my mother picked up my brother and me...Without turning to face us, she said that the two families were splitting into separate households...Despite the intimacy of our crowded household, or perhaps because of it, we kids refrained from probing the details of the adults' love lives. Instead I stared at the smudged upholstery of the seat in front of me, feeling in my stomach as though we had just driven off a cliff..."
Unlike many essays about difficult parents, this author strives to be as respectful and understanding of them as possible. Yet his story makes it clear the kids had little say or information about the choices which controlled their lives.
Nor does he mention if his parents ever explained those choices, or acknowledge their impact on him. The divorce sounds like more of the same.
I don't think this story can be taken as an argument for or against all polyamory. In this story, however, I see parents who made their kids secondary to their ideas/needs - which may explain why it didn't work.
I respect the author's attempt to cope by only blaming the divorce for his issues, but the events were clearly entwined. Of course it's easier to gloss over parental flaws pre-divorce, but to an outside observer, the lack of consideration seems the same.
If anything, the subtext of this article is about finding the strength to accept parents as human and flawed. This doesn't excuse their self-absorption as depicted.
-
Forget Joe: Where's Joan?
[Read the article: Democrats, put down your swords]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm sure I'm not the only one to say this: while I appreciate Joe Conason's article, he's not the main one on the site who needs to write it. Joan Walsh needs to write something.
Conason has wrote many items I found highly questionable, especially his unsavory poor defense of Sydney Blumenthal, but he at least acknowledged and dissected McCain as well.
Joan, however, deliberately stoked the animosity between supporters. She wrote some incredibly bad faith posts which essentially trolled her readers, producing a divise frenzy in the comments section.
It's just an online discussion, but Salon followed the rest of the media by gleefully encouraging the angry split between Democrats. And now they'll write about the lingering Division as if they weren't responsible for it
Joan's Clinton bias wouldn't have been so infuriating if she were honest about it, but her faux-neutral posing made her dubious assertions worse.
One of the most unforgivable tactics was repeatedly framing Obama supporters as sexist cultists, responsible for sexist media figures they in no way controlled.
If McCain wins, Salon is going to have to take some responsibility for poisoning the political atmosphere.
Salon had a decent reputation before this all began. There are still great writers on the site, but it's overshadowed by the outrage mining. If Salon wants to recover its rep, Joan needs to take part.
On the other hand, perhaps she's being silent because she's incapable of writing anything which doesn't undermine Obama - in which case, stay away Joan.
-
It's also worth repeating: Obama/Clinton trolls speak for nothing but their own destructive selves
[Read the article: Democrats, put down your swords]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I should also repeat what someone else said, which also applies to Obama supporters:
"Letter writers, please realize the extreme unlikelihood that any real Clinton supporter would say "You better kneel down and kiss our ass if you want our vote." Real Democrats, real Hillary supporters, just don't make such blunt, insulting statements. Not even those who believe they deserve appeasement. Even Joan Walsh's hideous column did not use that language...that the trolls will continued to come in here, pretending to be Democrats, in an attempt to keep a "fight within the party" going."
The same is true for those using Obama to spew endless amounts of sexism and bile. The most extreme of them are either pure trolls, or more interested in their anger than in actually voting.
Do not determine your future based on online rage where people feel free to spout off becuase it's faceless and rather anonymous.
-
The letters page needs more restrictions.
[Read the article: Democrats, put down your swords]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The relentless and fragmented posting of "truth machine" is evidence of a need to revise the letters page mechanics.
At this point one determined poster can shout down all other participants and render the comments unreadable for pages of single voiced ranting. At this point I think only invervention by a monitor can contravene this.
I don't think it would be obstructing discourse to limit the amount and frequency of posts in a thread. At the very least, someone should not be able to post twice in a row. Maybe they should only get one post per hour.
Meanwhile, if truth machine has any respect for discourse, s/he will take a break and stop making this all about him/her. You aren't making any point except your annoying obsession with having the last word.