Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
sutungpo
Published Letters: 47
What in the name of God has happened to the APA?
I was trained as a psychologist during the early days of the Reagan "revolution". At the time, the APA represented the voice of reason as we fought the conservative agenda, from the atacks on the school lunch program to the demonization of the gay/lesbian movement.
I watched as the APA began the fight to achieve parity with the medical professionals, watched as we lost ground continually as mental health services were at the least drastically cut and at the worst eliminated altogether in the name of eradicating "entitlement". I retained a certain pride in the profession, and hoped for the best.
Then along came "Curious George W" and 9/11. The APA at that time apparently decided that the last best hope for the profession was adapting to the desires of the Right, and providing services that the medical profession refused to endorse.
I for one firmly believe that the Faustian bargain that we as a profession made was in fact the death knell for our movement. Compassion? Nah, we don't do that. We're a skeered!
I've resigned my ties to the APA. I encourage all allied professionals to do the same. If we have to go the way of the dinosaurs, at least we go down with our morality intact.
Like anyone who reads Marquez, I was stunned by the prose, even as translated. He is possibly the greatest living writer, an expert at conjuring an earler time and far away place and making it seem very real.
However, I was deeply disturbed by Cholera, more so than by his other works. His everyday matter of factness when writing about his "hero"s pedophilia, promiscuity and incest were most troubling to someone with my early 21st Century sensibilities. Presenting this character as a moral exemplar of some sort of rare and all consuming love made me squirm and I felt that even as an example of the realtivity of moral values it went a bit far. It has always seemed to me to represent what is in fact wrong with the latinate cultures. The "hero" objectifies women, whether it's the exagerated "resepct" for the love object or the degredation and disregard shown for the neice. Neither is seen as human.
I haven't seen the movie, and now of course I won't see it. In fairness it seems to me that there may not have been any way to capture the thought provoking aspects of the novel in a form that would be remotely acceptable to contemporaries. Marquez, put simply, may be unfilmable at presemt.
Connie Willis, like Stephen King, is a WRITER who chooses to work with genre materials, rather than a genre writer. Your pointed lack of reference to any sort of genre connection was refreshing and essentially correct. Willis is at the bottom an explorer in the vast ocean of possible human (and occasionmal et) relationships. She transcends genre in the same way that It, King's master work, does, by examining the lives of people who happen to be in a genre setting but are by no means genre characters. She is, quite simply, without equal when seen as a writer of genre futuristic fiction. Thanks for recognizing the one "sci-fi" writer that I can still bear reading.
Okay, let's assume that this represents what it looks like it represents, that there is a massive "I ain't voting for no n....r" component within Clinton base. She has, after all, served as First Lady of Arkansas, not exactly the state with the best race relations record.
The truly troubling thing is that her staff are spreading this garbage around as reason to vote for her.
Like it or not, Ms. Clinton has basically proven herself complicit in the crimes and misdemeanors of the current administration, one that makes the Grant presidency seem like a model for ethics reform and good government, to a frightening degree. She supported the war, and seems to have pledged to continue it on present course, she didn't oppose Nafta, she has done nothing to oppose the national surviellence activites of this president, etc.....
It seems obvious that another Clinton presidency will play out as Bill in a skirt. Nothing will change. The obscenely rich will get richer, the safety net for the poor will continue towards their ultimate goal of disappearing forever, and the ethically challenged principles of Clinton 1 will be perpetrated ad infinitum.
Given the cowardice shown by the current crop of Democratic officials in allowing this sub-human monster of a president to continue his beserker approach to politics, can we as a free nation afford another Clinton administration? Hell, at least McCain beleives in something, and frankly that is beginning to look preferable to the situational ethics of the Clinton camp.
I for one do believe that things will change in an Obama presidency. And honestly, any change at this point is preferable to another period of business as usual.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
