Letters to the Editor
Gwool
Published Letters: 366 Editor's Choice: 40
-
Time is pitiless?
[Read the article: Why is Bill Clinton in Connecticut?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"In the ensuing years, each has parked some of his youthful ideals and gotten behind the wheel of the shiny new centrism. And the Elton Hotel has become an assisted-living facility. Time is pitiless."
That's a great image, albeit one I would see a little differently. The so-called progressive movement calling for a return to liberalism pushes forth tired ideas. Ideas, frankly, that should rest with those in the assisted living facility. It is said conservatives protect the status quo, but when it comes to social programs, liberals have become the staunch defender of the status quo. Seeking different methods to address age old problems is not a bad thing. Great Society programs can and should be evaluated and modified as needed. Calling into question their worth and effectiveness should not immediately be met with attacks on one's commitment to the problem these programs address.
Taking Lieberman out will do nothing but put the party a step backwards. Oh, sure, Hillary will trim her sails and become more progressive, as she pivots faster than a well-oiled weathervane, but tacking left won't pick up many more voters in the general.
Lieberman's a highly principled man with whom I agree about half the time. I'll take that over a snake in the grass with principles of convenience any day of the week.
-
BizarroWorld
[Read the article: I'm in an arranged marriage but I think I want out]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Forget the past actions. Those are decisions made. Look only at what you have moving forward.
You got married; after three months you had a fight; and you bailed.
This ought not come as a newsflash, but couples argue. Sometimes it can get pretty nasty. Part of the early marriage process is learning how to interact with one another. You don't learn that having retreated to your respective corners and pulled down the cone of silence.
Now, if the argument is just an excuse to exit the marriage, then seeking advice seems rather pointless. If you want to try to get the thing on track, then you will need to communicate with the good doctor. It might sound a little backwards, but go out on a few "dates." Lay out in a public venue where shouting will be frowned upon the manner in which you expect to be treated. Expect to hear some demands from the good Doctor about what he expects as well.
Lots of newlyweds have blow outs early in the relationship. It's when they learn that wedded "bliss" can at times be anything but. Over time the guy may grow on you. Over time he may not. Were it a simply matter of deciding to stay in a relationship with a boyfriend, it might not justify the same amount of work. You're married. It signifies a greater commitment and, in turn, a greater hassle from which to extricate.
That doesn't mean you have to lay down, point your toes to Jesus and think about shopping. It does mean that you have to talk openly to your husband. Let him know how you expect to be treated. In turn be ready to hear how he expects to be treated. Look for common ground.
Maybe it will work; maybe it won't. If it does, then great. If it doesn't, then start the process to get out of it. At this point, however, it doesn't seem as though much effort has been invested in trying to make it work. You made the decision to marry. Fleeing after one argument isn't putting much effort into it.
-
Yawn
[Read the article: "The Odyssey": The original chick lit?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I had a former employee who went back to school to get a doctorate in History. Having come from the business analyst community, he wrote his thesis on the history of business marketing, which went over like a fart in church. When I asked him about this, he simply stated that since his thesis didn't enhance the role of women or delve into the sex lives of long dead white men to question their sexual orientation, no one gave a damn in academia.
And, of course, this diatribe makes irresistable a sexist joke. Of course they were written by women. Homer was blind and needed secretaries.
Could it have been written by a woman? Sure. Could a woman have been a sort of editor or someone from whom Homer sought inputs? Sure. It was perhaps written by committee since it was an overlong story not ready for prime time. Think of a latter day Dick Van Dyke show. Shirley there was a Rose Marie in the mix to provide the female perspective.
At the end of the day we simply are not going to know anymore than we know whether or not all of Shakespeare's works were written by him. (Willie did leave his second best bed to his wife in his will, suggesting he did jump the fence. Maybe his mistress had a hand in more than just his britches.)
Regardless, how it impacts us today and why it is worth the energy to speculate shows yet again that we are a society with way too much time on our hands.
-
Not the case, Lynx
[Read the article: "The Odyssey": The original chick lit?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You wrote: "Another yawner, Gwool, relates a story by someone who evidently failed to get a PhD and gives the reason for failure 'When I asked him about this, he simply stated that since his thesis didn't enhance the role of women or delve into the sex lives of long dead white men to question their sexual orientation, no one gave a damn in academia.'"
The lad got his doctorate, which perhaps I did not make clear. The issue was its popularity within academia. The body of work was sound and well reasoned, and he received his degree. He even went on to become a professor for a while. His "community" didn't care about it. Hence the statement that the popular treatises delved into "the role of women or ... into the sex lives of long dead white men to question their sexual orientation." The displeasure was with the mindset, not a rationalization for academic failure.
Hence why he is now managing a strategy team for an aerospace company.