Letters to the Editor
David L.
Published Letters: 224 Editor's Choice: 9
-
WTF strikes again...
[Read the article: My sister is having an illicit affair]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wow...Cary slam-dunked this one, and didn't need to stretch it out with a lot of speculative "what-ifs." He's right to say that the LW can't reveal this to anyone else, but I think given the insight Cary reveals about the sub-conscious reasoning for the LW's sister, the LW needs to have a final conversation about this whole mess with the errant sister, before bowing out. Writing a letter to the other wife isn't going to do any good...in fact, given the husband's tendency to blow up, it might escalate the affair into violence, and we don't need that to happen.
LW, here's what you need to do. Call your sister (or make that final flight out to see her), then tell her that while you will not reveal anything to the rest of the family, or to the world, that you are stepping out of the arena until further notice, because:
1) As woman who's married, seeing her sister wreck another marriage just isn't acceptable any more. If the sis tries to use the LW's wild past to stop her from passing judgement, the obvious reply would be "Well, that was years ago...and we are not talking about me, so don't change the subject!"
2) You suspect that your sister has psychological problems that affect her relationships with men, and she needs help for that.
3) Your sis has Herpes...ICK!!!! God forbid if she's kept this a secret. To knowingly risk passing that on to someone is just plain evil (and god damn the philandering husband if he knows, because that's an even greater sin to pass it on to your wife, without her knowing).
4) At any time, the affair might be discovered...just how will this man o' yours act then? Here's where you throw your trump card down about having a right-mind to send a letter to the wife, but won't because of your oath to your philandering sis...but just because you won't doesn't mean someone else might not do it instead...
5) You no longer wish to be your sister's crying towel...in fact, I would point out that your sister is being completely selfish here, burdening you with this forbidden knowledge...and you no longer want that burden any more.
Yeah, I know I'll get burned for telling the LW to suggest that she might spill the beans on her sister's little secret...that is a bit manipulative, but hell, the sister needs a good verbal smack-down to come to her senses and realize just how much damage she causing to her family, to her man and his family, and to herself.
And as always, seeing a good therapist would be the next logical step for the sis...she got issues...
-
DTMFA...
[Read the article: Should I invite my difficult friends to the in-laws' lake house?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Don't worry about the woman's husband for the moment...just think about this. You have in-laws (they're not even blood relatives), you plan to go to see them. Even though you hinted at it, you never made a FIRM commitment to have these folks over, right? So she decides to invite herself...you don't feel comfortable about, and she starts to nag about it more...answer here is very simple: no. My wife and I have run into this before, and all you have to do is bow out and say this coming trip (or vacation, or whatever) is just a private family event, and that's all...
If she leans on you more, you can then decide whether or not this friendship is really worth all this stress or not. What the hell has said friend done for you lately? What do you get out of this friendship? Because being friends is a 2-way street...if you look at the balance and on your friend's side it's just take-take-take, then you need to DTMFA...
-
Sorry, but a history lesson is kinda needed here...
[Read the article: "It is impossible to miss the discrimination against ... believers"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"And of course, Gingrich didn't mention that the reason Washington had to make those assertions was because the real philosophical founding fathers of the nation, like Jefferson and Hamilton, didn't believe them. Unsurprising that the old military man chose to make his assertions on his way out."
Actually...Hamilton was Washington's shadow writer for most of his presidency, and most of Washington's Farewell Address was his writing...If anything, Newt-boy shows his lack of understanding about history to neglect this fact. And the fact that Hamilton had married a very devoutly religious woman, which strengthened his beliefs as well. Beliefs which came to fruition thru Washington, is greatest supporter.
Jefferson was the only real borderline secularist/humanist out of the original Founding Fathers. Even Ben Franklin was a big (financial) supporter of the church, though he differed with most preachers on their inability to combine reason with faith...which is why he would support that institution, but never go to church himself on a regular basis.
So, the religious right does have some validity when they claim that our country was founded by God-fearing men. But where they miss the boat is that the document they created (Declaration of Independence, and later the Bill of Rights) was SPECIFICALLY written with the full acknowledgement that our country was then (and would continue to be) a religiously pluralistic society. They are just twisting that document as they see fit, based on what they think was the intent of the Founding Fathers...but they are wrong on that. They may be quick to blame Jefferson for using the term Creator, but hell, the Founding Fathers signed off on that document...if they had a beef about using the phrase Creator instead of God, they sure as shit didn't make that case back then.
Anyway, who cares what a philandering, has-been politician has to say at a commencement addr. I guess God does look after fools and idiots...