Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 56 Editor's Choice: 12
-
Heh.
[Read the article: Libby pleads not guilty, but the public's verdict is already in]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Those last two paragraphs make me feel all warm and fuzzy, as if the sun were in my belly.
-
Why myths still matter
[Read the article: Why myths still matter]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This assertion presupposes that Americans, and more specifically those that get most of their information from television "news," actually know any of the mythology Miller references. That's highly unlikely.
-- Jeff II
I don't know, Jeff. It seems to me that myths, like great literature, are what they are because they speak to something within people. The experiences and feelings they evoke reach across the years and across cultures. They touch something primal, perhaps (dare I say it) universal to the human experience. A great myth touches people huddled around a campfire as much as any family plopped in front of the TV. Isn't that where Jung's theory of archetypes came from? You don't need to know the specific myth for its themes and characters to resonate somewhere within you.
Regards,
-
You've done it again
[Read the article: The banality of evil]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If Salon keeps printing such convincing book reviews that I have to run out and purchase the title in question, I'm going to run out of money. Give a poor grad student a break and review some shlock!
-
Mr. Tennis's words
[Read the article: My secret is about to be revealed]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mr. Tennis, your advice to this woman is right on the money and expressed with a depth of feeling and wisdom that I truly respect. Your advice, especially in regards to "Doug's" selfishness, is right on.
-
Challenging how we perceive the developmentally delayed.
[Read the article: Comedically challenged]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The opening lines to Ms. Zacharek's review of "The Ringer" asks us, "Is it OK to laugh at or with people with mental disabilities?" I have to answer that question with an unequivocal "yes." Before leaping down my throat, please allow me to note that I am a former special education teacher and transition specialist who now works for California's Regional Center system, delivering case management and advocacy services for children and adults with developmental disabilities. Ms. Zacharek's review is wonderfully nuanced, correctly noting the questions that "The Ringer" forces us to ask ourselves. The film challenges not just our preconceived notions about people with developmental disabilities, but our own notions of political correctness.
Sometimes, my consumers and students have done things that are outright hysterical. Ask anyone who works with people with developmental disabilities, and they will have a funny story, either inadvertent or deliberate on the part of someone they serve. Invariably in working with people - no matter their perceived status - something happens that just makes you want to laugh. The Farrelly brothers, who have a long-standing interest in working with individuals with developmental disabilities, are quite right to challenge our notions of correctness. By not laughing when something funny occurs just because a person has a developmental disability, aren't we allowing that disability to define them?
One of the most telling marks of an excellent parent within the system I work in is how they define their child. The parent who says "I have a child with autism" defies society by refusing to pigeonhole his or her child as "autistic." Autism becomes a part of what makes them who they are. A challenging part, but merely one aspect of their identity, rather than the sum of it. No more than we would allow a person with diabetes to be defined solely as a diabetic, a person with a developmental disability is first and foremost a person, unique and interesting in their own right. Yes, that uniqueness is informed by their disability, but it does not define them. Ask anyone who works with members of the developmentally disabled population, and they will be able to describe a person with qualities we all recognize, wholly independent of a diagnosis.
"The Ringer" challenges us to recognize people with developmental delays as people, first and foremost. Most of us wouldn't hesitate to laugh at a friend or even a stranger who does something ridiculous or funny. What makes them more deserving of the gift of interaction that humor brings than someone who happens to have a developmental disability?
Not a thing.
-
An upshot, perhaps..?
[Read the article: Iraq sticker shock]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Maybe something good will come out of all of this. After all, we live in a society driven by capitalism, by an economic mindset concerned with profits exceeding costs. Modern medicine is now so effective, soldiers survive wounds they never would have and live long, difficult, disabled lives. Bullets, bombs, and body armor are increasingly expensive - we actually ran out of Tomahawk missiles during the Kosovo conflict. Training a soldier for the modern battlefield is significantly more expensive than it was fifty, or even twenty, years ago. And with the modern media, the reality of these costs can be shared by one and all, and not just those personally affected. One day, perhaps even in our lifetimes (possibly with this war), we will see the cost of war rise higher than a nation can afford monetarily, economically, physically, and spiritually. The cost-benefit ratio will simply be too prohibitive.
Unless they put cameras on the soldiers, planes, and tanks and start broadcasting on pay per view television. Then the vicariously nihilistic consumers will pay for war in one more way. Who knows, maybe war would even become profitable then. A scary thought.