Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
garcohsf
Published Letters: 62 Editor's Choice: 3
I agree with the posters who say that Cary's advice is juvenile and that it trivializes both the letter writer's marriage and his feelings for his co-worker. Obviously, the writer has to decide what he wants. Taking him at his word, he wants to stay in his marriage. In that case, he can't have sex with his co-worker. Duh.
I don't believe that means he has to give up his feelings for and relationship with his co-worker, which is clearly very important to him. He feels more alive, etc. with her than with anyone (because they're not married, in part). So he needs to be clear with himself that he can't ever sleep with her, that he understands that this is something he wants but can't have. And doesn't really want to have, given the consequences, which is that he is likely to lose both the marriage and the friendship.
What he can do is love her. He can be intimate with her, in every way other than physically. He can show her how much she means to him--without ever saying so, if he thinks that to say "I love you" would be misunderstood.
I have had many such relationships, and they are very important to me. My wife knows and socializes with these women, and knows that I would never have sex with any of them.
Which doesn't mean I can't ever fantasize . . . .
You have to include Case Closed, even if you don't agree with it, because it is certainly a serious, thoughtful, scientific look at the issues.
How many people realize that Oswald tried to kill someone else, with the same rifle, a day or so (I forget) before Kennedy was shot and the rifle was found in the Texas School Book Depository?
Joe Conason's suggestion implies that negotiations are an end to themselves. Just what is this negotiation going to be about, and who is going to participate in it? As others have pointed out, what credibility does the US have in brokering such discussions?
If you are an insurgent, and you believe you are winning (because you are) and believe that the US will eventually get tired of paying the price of staying in Iraq (because it will), why would you put down your bombs to negotiate?
If there is going to be a civil war when we withdraw, it's going to happen whether we withdraw in 2006 or in 2008. The only difference is how many Americans and Iraqis will die in the meantime. We are a big part of the problem and no part of the solution. We should withdraw as soon as practicable.
It seems to me that it is important to look at this decision in terms of its longer-term strategic impact, beyond the immediate question of whether the Republicans will pull the nuclear trigger.
Assuming they do and Alito is confirmed, one possibility is that Roe v. Wade will be overturned or substantially limited by the 2008 Presidential election. In addition, it's possible that the Court will have handed down a decision upholding President Bush's authority to wiretap without warrant in time of war (meaning forever, since we will always be at war from now on). Those should be good issue for Democrats; the question is how much difference it will make if they will be able to point out that they fought Alito with everything they had, as opposed to meekly voting against him. We saw how Kerry's vote for the Iraq war was very difficult for him to overcome, notwithstanding the fact that it had become clear by the time of the election that the administration had misled/lied to the public in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
I think that there would be substantial value to the Democrats fighting, if for no other reason than to show that they know how to fight and they know that there are some things worth fighting for. I also think that Alito's views on executive authority, in the context of this administration, are frightening, and that this is the issue the Democrats should decide to filibuster on. The "extraordinary circumstances" are that we have a President who claims the right to decide which acts of Congress to obey and which to ignore, and we have a nominee who, it appears, will support that view. This is much more significant than the allegations that Alito is a bigot (I doubt he is) or even Roe, since it seems clear that abortion will continue to be available in those states in which it is widely available now.
The fact that reporters hate him because of how rude and arrogant he is does, too. The interesting question which has never been answered to my satisfaction (and which is barely addressed in "Game of Shadows," is what effect did steriod use really have on Bonds' (and others' performance. This is a scientific question, not simply one of comparing his stats before he was using and after.
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"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
