Letters to the Editor
namegoeshere
Published Letters: 70 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Working from home and other compromises
[Read the article: We moved, and now my husband is miserable]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Has the LW considered attempting to arrange to work from a remote location? I understand that not all jobs lend themselves to this arrangement, but in the LW's case (enjoying the job, being promoted, having worked there for three years - which is ample time to prove oneself) it sounds like it might be worth proposing to her superiors. Could she commute from a nearby city a couple days a week? Or perhaps only once a month? Flexible schedules can be a godsend in this type of situation!
If moving is in fact what the LW and her husband need to do to make him happy (has she asked him if this is what he truly wants, anyway?), perhaps she doesn't have to give up everything. Could her daughter take out a student loan when she gets to university, and live in student housing rather than at home? Could the husband hang on long enough for the LW's daughter to complete high school so that her happiness isn't at stake here? She doesn't have to give up her friends and her future school just so that the LW's husband can alleviate his depression.
Don't think of this as all or nothing; as the LW has said, she wants to begin to put down roots if she's going to stay put. What will make the LW happy, in all of this? Because if the answer is "having a happy husband and also keeping my life mostly unchanged", the LW isn't thinking realistically, she's dealing in ideals, which will only set her up for disappointment in the end.
(Apologies if any of this has been said in other letters.)
-
If you ever figure out the recipe...
[Read the article: Ode to a giant saltstick]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...don't forget to share with your readers! The epicureans among us would appreciate it.
-
tzemingdynasty is right on.
[Read the article: Integrity and slime, in old media and new]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Jezebel is a celebrity gossip blog, not a political one. Sure, they post some Broadsheet-esque articles, but when a site's stock in trade is celebrity snapshots, it's not exactly fair to hold them up to the journalistic standards of Time magazine or the NYT. Next you're going to tell me that Perez Hilton is defaming every starlet he draws cocaine dribbles on and should be ashamed of his (probably not) inaccurate reporting.
Cheap shot, Joan.
-
"Discover" isn't strong enough.
[Read the article: Their bodies, ourselves]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The parents who live out their children's every drama with them may be apt to overemphasize some symptoms of their own, self-diagnosed versions of illnesses, sure. But don't forget that there are always those parents who will use their newfound illness as a way to detract from the seriousness of their child's condition and place emphasis back on themselves. Rather than a sympathetic end, these parents are too self-centered not to turn the whole situation around into a big story about themselves.
For instance, when my father was temporarily on the same medication that I'll be taking for the rest of my life, he only wanted to "compare notes" so that he could do an oh-poor-me song and dance about how much it just SUCKS to take meds. Not only did he pooh-pooh away the seriousness of my condition, he attempted to make his own appear more serious than it actually is in an attempt to elicit sympathy from me, of all people.
Both the best intentions (alleviating a child's feelings of singled-outedness or aloneness) and the worst (see above) can detract from the care of what has been discovered to be an ill child. People aren't perfect, but it's important to differentiate between their priorities in cases involving those who are too young to always speak up for themselves.
-
Stephanie picked Zodiac.
[Read the article: The best indie movies of 2007]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Do I win?
-
Facebook
[Read the article: Despite Web success, Obama loses Silicon Valley]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, we all know that every Facebook user lives in Santa Clara County.
That makes total sense.
-
Save, loans, invest
[Read the article: What will YOU do with your fiscal stimulus check?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1/3 to student loan payments
1/3 to savings
1/3 to investing in foreign currency
Reasonable enough.
-
Mick LaSalle is terrible.
[Read the article: Voting for Clinton is like choosing a chick flick?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He's a terrible movie reviewer, and a generally contemptible human being. He has a Sunday Q&A column, which is basically a space given to him to mock his readers and act out his Napoleon complex in print. Despicable. This is just the latest black mark on his record, IMHO.
-
Dear Salon:
[Read the article: Wal-Mart can be good for your health]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Get a copy editor.
-
The New York Times has it about right:
[Read the article: Lindsay Lohan strips for "The Last Sitting"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/arts/21loha.html:
Regardless, she appears dramatic doing it. Ms. Lohan looks narrow-hipped and voluptuous in the pictures, taut and soft. At 21 she seems even older than Monroe, who was 36 in the originals, and hardened by her excesses. The photographs bear none of Monroe’s fragility. In the first picture — Ms. Lohan wears a platinum wig and false eyelashes for all the images, by the way — she drapes the pink chiffon across her torso diagonally, and if she looks like anyone at all, it is Madonna. Monroe looked available in her Stern photos; Ms. Lohan looks available for sale.
Ms. Lohan has spoken freely about her obsession with Monroe over the years, but it is Madonna’s strategy of managing the image of her own sexuality that perhaps Ms. Lohan hopes to reproduce. There is a chance this approach could work for her if she is willing to offer the world more than her bust line. And if, in her recreational hours, she is prepared to turn simply to yoga.
Now can we all stop blaming LiLo for being too dumb to understand the difference between exploitative sexuality and the expression of fragility through the nude body? She's an actress, not a philosopher. She's freakin' 21 years old. Tell me that any one of you would have had the gravitas to discern the difference.
-
Ugh.
[Read the article: Push the envelope, please!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This article was terrible.
You really don't want people to subscribe, do you Salon?