Letters to the Editor
juneausmog
Published Letters: 223 Editor's Choice: 10
-
The problem is, similar problems get treated differently
[Read the article: My husband went to jail for pot -- and now he's smoking again!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree with the above poster about you Mr. Tennis. I too read your advice with awe, but this time, I think you just went straight into validating her worse fears, rather than trying to reason it out.
I found it interesting that LW mentioned many problems her husband had in their early years: he was risky, he smoked pot all the time and he was a financial mess. Beforehand, he engaged in rather out-of-control and thoughtless indulgent behaviour vis-a-vis his wallet. Through their relationship, LW's stability and nurturing characteristics pulled them through so that now they are financially stable. Sure, maybe he gambles sometimes, maybe he is a little careless with their money now and then. Who knows, she didn't mention any little missteps with that particular problem he formerly had.
On the other hand, his other problem: smoking pot, landed them both in jail. That is horrible and must have been traumatic for them; especially her. So now, her fears (based on inexperience and propoganda no doubt) about pot just got majorly validated through that experience and now she has anxiety about this particular issue.
I wonder if he never landed them in jail because of smoking pot, but did land them in bankruptcy court, she would be having different issues with him now.
LW has helped her husband act more responsibly with his former problems. But for the reason mentioned above, the missteps of smoking pot are different than missteps with other behavioral problems and are to be treated differently.
From what I read, I really did not pick up that he was an addict in the first place. An avid smoker could mean many things. My husband smokes pot almost every evening rather than having a nightcap. He has a little bit of ADHD and it helps his mind calm down. He never NEEDS it. Do I consider him an addict? No. Avid? Yes.
But realizing that his pot smoking landed him and his girlfriend in jail and responding to her ultimatum may be a sign that he is taking responsibility for assauging her anxiety rather than recognizing he had a problem; because its possible he didn't have one in the first place.
I have a buddy who is like LW's husband. And his wife is just as straight-laced as she is. He doesn't have a problem drinking or smoking and really enjoys it, but she has a problem with it; so now its his problem too. He lives with it, he loves and respects her too much. However occasionally, he'll self-indulge because he loves and respects himself too, and sometimes just wants to calm down or loosen up by taking recreational drugs responsibly.
In the end, its his wifes' issue that makes it a problem. I suspect this is the same situation. Why shouldn't she explore her own anxieties about it before jumping to conclusions and assuming he's an addict? It could be that the trauma is now creating more drama.
-
Can't help taking a character swipe
[Read the article: Hurricane Al]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]at Al Gore, can you? Looking back at how the press idolized all of Bush's 'quirkiness' in the '00 election and constantly treated Gore's characteristics in a very condescending way, it really irks me that this writer has to continue to throw in some old pokes just because that's the conventional treatment Al Gore gets from the press.
If you are going to write an introspective article about Al Gore, try to be introspective yourself Mr. O'Hehir. Why do you have to be the same way as the rest of the journalists? Because it's cool in the journalism culture? Wow, that's really deep Mr. O'Hehir.
Why the hell does the GOP characters get the 'Don't-ask-don't-tell' treatment from the press: McCain gets lionized and Bush gets to be the good 'ol boy. WTF does Al Gore have to do to stop getting digs like that? I'm really tired of the press corp being so condescending about him. Al Gore has achieved more not being president, than Bush has being president.
-
This isn't yesterday's Wonky
[Read the article: Hurricane Al]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Tideswimmer,
I believe Mr. O'Hehir is using the term wonky as an adjective derived off of the noun 'wonk' which means the following:
# A student who studies excessively; a grind.
# One who studies an issue or a topic thoroughly or excessively
It has been adapted in pop culture to be applied towards politics mostly, which is why we have bloggers called 'Wonkette' and why DC is called 'Wonkville'. I haven't heard of 'wonky' yet and that could have been akin to Stephanie Miller calling Bush 'Leadery' or Colbert coining 'Truthiness'. However, I do not think it is tongue-in-cheek like the above examples because Gore is wonky when it comes to Global Warming and how it should be worked into national policy.
As for the admonishment on posters such as me, who have derided O'Hehir's slights at Al Gore, despite the overall good review, I beg to differ. Journalists marginalize Al Gore and it needs to stop. We are pointing out behavior that has hurt his image in the past, especially when they are without merit. Being part of the Smear-train, no matter how big or little, provides us with no favors and the press needs to be more responsible about how they throw these words out.
The press only has the power of words to get the facts out there, we want them to speak truth to power when they do their job. In today's climate, where any supporters of liberal ilk are shamed, slimed, smeared and their patriotism questioned, might be a little sensitive right now, but it's absolutely warranted. Today's journalists have shirked their responsibilty towards the American people. I hear your argument, but I see it similarly to those weak-hearted Democrats who sit in congress saying, 'Can't we just get along?' and then do nothing but get trounced by the more aggressive and shameless actions of others. Time to counter that, even if it starts with admonishing an Op/Ed writer for lazy and conventional characterization.