Letters to the Editor
ELYDOG
Published Letters: 498 Editor's Choice: 43
-
Self-centeredness
[Read the article: Does "problem talk" depress girls?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]After the 911 attacks, surveys of survivors found out that 'talk' therapy -going over and over the trauma - actually increased the trauma. Of course the psycho-analytic industry and the legions of para-shrinks didn't like that report.
Same with 'talk' therapy at home. Forgetting is actually a sign of mental health. Of course if you forget everything, it is a sign of socio-pathic behavior. Sometimes you do have to talk about things, but many men seem to have survived without beating everything to death. Many soldiers actually don't want to talk about what happened in their 'war,' for very good reasons.
The heart of this kind of thing, I think, is just a kind of thirst for self-centered attention. Especially when it is a long running situation. Talk therapy at it's best is supposed to reveal something unknown, not keep digging up the known.
-
Excellent economic news coverage
[Read the article: Don't sell my company to Rupert Murdoch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]For all the Salon readers sneering over the upcoming purchase by Murdoch, just remember. The WSJ news group has a UNION. Don't gloat when UNION members are threatened with a lay off. If you are so unfamiliar with the WSJ that you don't know the editorial page from the news pages, look again.
Many times the reporters have dug up material that exposes the ediorial board's embrace of late laissez faire finance capitalism, because they do their job and get the facts. Curbing the facts is what late capitalist journalism is all about. This process is reaching farther and farther into the upper reaches of bourgoies journalism. Witness the deformations of reporting at the NYT, and now the purchase of the WSJ. The WSJ news staff is a throw-back, but we need 'throw-backs.'
Good luck to you Mr. Yount in your battle with Murdoch. If you lose, maybe you can find your next job on the internet or cable ...
-
News Corp
[Read the article: Don't sell my company to Rupert Murdoch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Littledataguy,
The closest you've probably been to a union is walking by an office on the street.
Again, there is a difference between news and editorialism, and frankly, many Marxists I know get lots of good information from the WSJ news folks. Odd, huh? They are to your left, by, what, 50%?
And perhaps the closest you've been to detailed financial information is your bank statement. Cheerleading for the most reactionary infotainment company in the world to take over the WSJ is assinine.
-
3rd party intolerant?
[Read the article: What you missed while watching "Ask a Ninja"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't believe we are at the advent of a third party, but third party events in U.S. history have always had an effect on the two main behemouths.
Read your U.S. history! From the Republicans in the mid 1860s, Populists in the late 1800s, the socialists during WWI, the Farmer Labor party in Minnesota, the Wallace candidacy in the 1950s, through George Wallace, Perot and Nader, third parties revitalized actual democracy.
You do believe in actual democracy, don't you? Europe is in far better shape democratically than this country. Weak government? Bring it on. What we have here is permanent dictatorial government... benign of course at this point, but becoming less so every day.
We need a large labor-based third party in this country, fighting for the needs of workers, women, minorities, gays and every other group which has been stepped on. The problem with the Democrats is that they are not accountable once in office. The party is controlled by big money. An actual, more direct democracy would be rooted in mass organizations based on work, on role, or on geography. The Democrats don't really have any mass organizations, except the trade unions, which are unable to control them. Witness NAFTA.
Intolerance is shown by those who are against any party but the two 'approved' ones. The range of political opinion in the 'public square' in this country is extremely narrow. For instance, why didn't someone suggest nationalizing the oil companies to the candidates? A question like that wouldn't even get through...
-
Clarity
[Read the article: How the Democrats differ on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]IT was good to read this article, because is shows the 'front-runners' are posed to stay in Iraq for a long time. All the 'peace' hokum is just to get votes.
Bill Clinton's government destroyed Yugoslavia on purpose, along with the Germans, and that is our aim in Iraq, to destroy the country. Joe Biden makes it most clear in his plan to divide the country (has he asked the Iraqis?). Ms. Clinton, attempting to start a 'Democratic' dynasty like the Bushes, will probably endorse Biden's view eventually. In a defacto sense it has already happened.
The reason the U.S. is in Iraq is oil, and protection of oil in the region, and that is why these candidates want to stay. It has nothing to do with humanitarianism, which is a cover. They are just carrying out the Carter doctrine.
Clinton, Obama, Biden and even Edwards are just the Humphreys of this war. It is startingly clear.
-
Vietnam
[Read the article: Operation Iraq betrayal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There was supposed to be a 'bloodbath' in Vietnam when the U.S. left. It didn't happen. Some who worked with the U.S. in the war die, and many were put in camps, but that is not the same thing.
The bloodbath in Vietnam happened during the war. Millions of civilians dead at the hands of the U.S.
So I guess you call it 'projection'...
There have been some excellent articles published on why the Iraq warfare won't go in this direction. Since we invaded, and organized the government based on ethnic groups, and some like Biden want to break up the country into ethnically pure enclaves (imagine some 'liberal' wanting to break up the U.S. into 'ethnically pure enclaves'!) I'd say the U.S. has already worked that angle.
In fact, our recent backing of Sunni (read former Hussein) forces in Anbar shows we might now be tilting against the Shia, and lining up with the Saudi Wahhabis. No one has anything to teach the U.S. about 'ethnic politics' or divide and conquer.