Letters to the Editor
jebldmm
Published Letters: 933 Editor's Choice: 164
-
The right has once again shocked me...
[Read the article: Clinton vs. Bush: A foolish fight for the GOP to pick]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...with it's audacity. Imagine you are in charge of security for a large bank. Six months after you are hired, you get a memo from a reliable person saying that there is a plot to rob the bank. You do nothing. Two months later, there is a major bank robbery. The Board of Directors calls you to a meeting and asks how this could have happened. You claim that the plot was started before you were in charge of security, and therefore you can't be held responsible, even though you were warned it was going to happen. You claim that the previous security chief had been lax, leaving glaring holes in the security, and you simply hadn't have time to address them. Do you think the Board would a) nod understandingly, knowing that you couldn't be expected to secure the bank in a mere 8 months or b) fire you, after making it clear that you shouldn't expect a good reference?
When I re-read this, it seems obvious to the point of triteness. What is really strange is that millions of people in American chose to re-elect Bush even knowing that he had ignored warnings of an attack and taken no actions to protect the country in the first months of his presidency. If 9/11 had happened in January or Feburary, this might be understandable. But 8 months is a long time for a country to be unprotected, and it's not like he didn't know in advance that he was going to take office - he actually had a few months to make plans before he even took office. The very fact that Clinton's culpability in 9/11 is an issue, while Bush's is not, is indicative of the sick way our media refuses to hold the current occupant of the White House responsible for his actions.
-
Grad school versus romance?
[Read the article: Will I lose my one great love because I acted on principle?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This would be a no-brainer for someone more mature than the writer, but I get the feeling that the writer still has some growing up to do. A lot, actually. The reality is that there is no such thing as the one and only love. I know - I've had three "true loves". At least the first two seemed like the "right" relationship at the time. But there was always something a bit off that I couldn't quite define. Finally, at 35, I found "Mr. Right". But the only reason I found him was that I had grown up enough to be "Ms. Right". And that required me spending some time alone, learning how to be a complete person. Passion is nice, but real love doesn't need drugs to feel right, and it lasts no matter how far apart you are. How do you know when it's right? First, you won't want to use drugs when you're with the person, because the reality of being with her will surpass any artificially induced emotions you can imagine. Second, you won't love the person "desperately". Love isn't about desperation. It about being a complete person who wants to share your completeness with another complete person. My favorite poem has a line "I love thee to the level of every day's most quiet need, by sun and candlelight". That's love. The kind of love you can grow old with. The kind of love that will last through separation, and disease, and stress, and time.
As for "I want her more than my PhD"... Of course you do. A PhD is hard work. A relationship, at least the way you were doing it, is much easier and more fun than a PhD. Anybody would rather have hot sex than complete a PhD thesis. Get your PhD. Learn to deal with grief. Grow into the kind of person who deserves a permanent relationship with a terrific woman. And if you end up being the right person for this woman, then she will be there when you are ready. If she isn't there, then you will find someone else, someone better suited to you. This is your first lover. Losing your first love hurts. But very few people hit a home run the first time they're up at bat. There are other women out there.
-
Any soldier who supports republicans is a fool
[Read the article: Bulletproof politics]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Republican party has shown nothing but disdain for our soldiers. They pay lip service to supporting the troops and never hesitate to use them as campaign props, but the only times they back up their talk with action is when there are political points to be scored. They have repeatedly denigrated the service of men and women who served in Vietnam, even to the point of claiming that men who received the highest honors soldiers can receive are cowards. I can't understand how any soldier who watched the "purple band-aid" protest during the Republican convention could ever support this party. They have cut veterans benefits at every opportunity, cut benefits to soldiers families, refused to fairly compensate the men who fight in the name of the National Guard, and sent troops into battle with second rate equiptment. Their leadership is overwhelmingly men who have never seen battle. There is no shame in not fighting a war, but the attitude of these men seems to be that anybody who is stupid enough to go to war deserved to be treated like dirt when they get home. Re-reading this, my letter seems a bit hostile. That was not my intent. I guess that I'm really sick of watching soldiers being used as campaign props while the actual behaviour of the Republican party shows that they have no respect for the men whom they are using so blatantly.