Letters to the Editor
Mishima666
Published Letters: 125 Editor's Choice: 28
-
"Girlfriend?"
[Read the article: My boyfriend danced dirty to make me jealous ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Boyfriend?"
These people have children together and live intimately together, and they consider themselves girlfriend and boyfriend? And then "boyfriend" has some other woman's hands all over him in order to make "girlfriend" jealous, as some kind of cruel joke?
Well, I guess in this situation we can forget the whole concept of "family." Family? What's that?
Maybe boyfriend will give girlfriend a "steady pin," like kids used to do in high school. Maybe he'll give her his letterman's jacket to wear. Maybe he'll take her to the prom. Maybe he'll let her sign his high school yearbook.
Cary recommends Myers-Briggs and "couples therapy." I think that only works with adults. But these people are children. Unfortunately they are children who have had children.
But the terminology is quite correct. Boyfriend and girlfriend are not man and woman; they are boy and girl. They don't need couples therapy; they need to talk to a pediatric psychologist. They may be 20, 30, or 40 years old, but they need pediatric counseling, not adult counseling.
-
What exactly was patented?
[Read the article: Who owns that offshore sucking sound?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It sounds like they just patented the concept of on-line training. Radical idea . . . .
Perhaps I'll join the fun and patent "a hardware appliance for full-time data protection, storage, indexing, and retrieval."
A book cover, in other words.
-
Hold on there!
[Read the article: Should Florida and Michigan vote again? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Before Florida and Michigan vote a second time, perhaps we Oregonians might be permitted to vote once. Last I knew Oregon was still in the U.S., even though our late primary date makes us irrelevant. So give us a chance first, Ok? We're already basically disenfranchised, but at least grant us the illusion that we are part of the primary process.
-
I may be wrong, but . . .
[Read the article: Nothing makes any sense anymore. I'm at the end of my rope]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This sounds to me very much like clinical depression, with repeated cycles of depression, each time becoming worse.
This sounds very much like a letter I could have written twenty years ago. Friends and family become a burden. You cannot draw water from the well for them because the well is dry for you. Everything becomes "too much," even as you carry on, mostly through force of habit.
Though it is impossible to "diagnose" someone through the content of a brief letter, I would urge the LW to see a psychiatrist, and perhaps consider going on some medication for a while. There is a great variety of medication available, much of it relatively inexpensive, and it is possible that the right med could make a huge difference. Or maybe not. But it seems to me that it would be a simple thing to try. If it works, great. If not, well, at least he or she would know that's not the problem.
-
Go there yourself.
[Read the article: A sickening truth at Guantánamo]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mizmoon writes: I need more than the word of one lawyer to buy this story. I'm not saying it's not true, but I think any lawyer representing an inmate/detainee/prisoner is going to make it sound as dire as possible to benefit the person they represent. That's their job.
If you don't believe the story, go there yourself and ask to see the prisoner. Oh wait, they won't let you see him.
Ok, how about if we send a 60 Minutes crew down there and interview him? Oops, the government won't allow that either.
So how about if we all chip in some money and fly his wife over so she can visit him? Nope, not going to work either.
So in order to verify the story, I guess you can ... what? If you don't believe the attorney, where exactly are you going to get additional information?
I take the attorney's story at face value. If it's not true, there are all sorts of ways the government can easily prove that. They could prove it tomorrow. But of course they won't.
The government has created a situation that certainly appears to be corrupt. As such, the people who create that situation bear the burden of proof to show that it's not corrupt. Until then, I believe the attorney.
-
"Events will prove one of us correct in the next few days."
[Read the article: "Today, I weep for my country"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It took more than a few days, but certainly it is clear who was correct, and it was not McCain -- not correct then, not correct now.
-
A voice from the past
[Read the article: War advocates like Anne-Marie Slaughter demand that you forget the past]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What I find very interesting is how Jeanne Kirkpatrick's 1979 article "Dictatorships and Double Standards" resonates with the situation in Iraq.
Concerning what happens when an authoritarian ruler is removed from power, Kirkpatrick writes:
But it seems clear that the architects of contemporary American foreign policy have little idea of how to go about encouraging the liberalization of an autocracy....Authority in traditional autocracies is transmitted through personal relations: from the ruler to his close associates (relatives, household members, personal friends) and from them to people to whom the associates are related by personal ties resembling their own relation to the ruler. The fabric off authority unravels quickly when the power and status of the man at the top are undermined or eliminated. The longer the autocrat has held power, and the more pervasive his personal influence, the more dependent a nation's institutions will be on him. Without him, the organized life of the society will collapse, like an arch from which the keystone has been removed....The speed with which armies collapse, bureaucracies abdicate, and social structures dissolve once the autocrat is removed frequently surprises American policymakers and journalists accustomed to public institutions based on universalistic norms rather than particularistic relations.
Does this sound like any country we know about today?