Letters to the Editor
Pit Viper
Published Letters: 43 Editor's Choice: 10
-
Not so fast.
[Read the article: Abramoff won't go down alone]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'd love to think that DeLay and co. are goners, but the raised-in-Ohio-blastfurnaced part of me says that they'll slip out of this like they will out of the Plame case. Why? Because this country has become so polarized that it doesn't matter what "your" party does as long as it is "your" party. Any excuse will do to scrub out the stains of bribery, larceny and contempt for the Constitution if "your" side is the culprit. With the cowardly and useless Dems in the minority (and some of them no doubt clients of Abramoff) and the constituancy not caring at all, there is nobody to hold these assholes accountable except some career bureaucrats.
Actually, far from not caring, the American mindset outside of the urban areas is generally (and I know that I am generalizing, but it's a true generalization) that the Indians had it coming. Average non-coastal Americans - the ones I know, at least, and I know a lot of them - resent the Indians for their tax-exempt status, despite spending lots of time and money at the casinos. They will applaud what Abramoff did, and see nothing wrong with the congressmen who benefited from the bribery. They'll see it as "doing smart business." They'll see it as Abramoff "getting even" for the average, trod-upon white American, despite the fact that their current, seriously troubled financial status has nothing to do with tax-exempt casino profits and everything to do with people like Abramoff and DeLay. They won't see the complexities of what Abramoff did, and how it has undermined everything our government should stand for.
I hope I'm wrong.
-
Norma's right
[Read the article: Abramoff won't go down alone]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Boston Globe, in its article about the "scandal," names ONE Abramoff fund-recipient by name...
Patrick Kennedy, DEMOCRAT.
Scandal, meet spin.
-
Bwaaaah!
[Read the article: I was conned by JT Leroy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can't get myself worked up about Waldeman as a lot of people do who read Salon. She's a narcissistic, bitchy mess, but her delusions are so out there and, because of her writing, out there that I can't help but be amused and be very, very glad that I'm not her mother-in-law.
This article was a hoot. This especially got me:
"the sheer magnitude of his self-absorption was entertaining"
Hello, Ms. Pot. And then later on, she decides that she put up with him because he made her feel good about herself which, again, hilarious, because pretty much every one of her columns is really about some revelation which confirms her fabulousness as wife/mother/daughter-in-law/friend.
I agree with whoever posted about the tired, easy myths the "liberal elite" (of which I suppose I can now be considered one) propagate about the midwest. I spent twenty long years growing up in Ohio and I rather think you can get more action of all kinds amongst the herds of teen queens at the mall than you can at David Lynchian truck stops, where the most dangerous thing available is the hash browns, or maybe a quaalude.
But when a needy "survivor" comes along, a victim of every torture the dark underbelly of America can deign to bestow, it sure does feel good to be validated in your suspicions about what goes on 'out there.' The creators of J.T Leroy were brilliant in stringing people along with carefully doled-out details of the murky depths which lurk in the subconscious of America.
-
It's not the ring, it's the family
[Read the article: I lost my engagement ring -- and secretly replaced it at Wal-Mart]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm a firm believer in the 'leaving your father and mother and cleaving to' bit when it comes to marriage. When two people agree to live together for the rest of their lives, they need to create a new relationship where the other person comes first, before anyone else. You are the protector, the first line of defense, the first and last refuge of your other.
My SO and I have been together for ten years and plan to be so for the rest of our lives. We are close to our families, but both sides know that they are not to meddle with our relationship in any way. We do not want children, but SO's parents are very, very keen on grandchildren, especially from their adored firstborn son. I, however, have not heard one single word about this from them, because SO has made it absolutely clear to his parents that they are not to speak to me about this, and they know he means it. So, he takes the flack for me. He puts me first. I do the same for him.
The fact that LW's fiance is allowing his family to shame LW - publically and in front of everyone - is awful. By doing so, he's complicit in his sister's nasty behavior and that's not an act of love. The fact that LW can't stand up for herself and say "Yeah, it was lost and I bought a replacement. Is there anything else you'd like to say about that?" indicates that shaming behavior is a pattern with his family and if she wants to marry this man, she needs to figure out how to work with that (because she won't be able to change the family) in a shared effort with her fiance.
They need to sit down and agree to put each other first. That means shared protection and shared responsibility for what the outside world sees of their relationship, and shared ideas and agreement about the stories they tell *about* their relationship. When weird shit happens around a relationship, those in the relationship make up a story to tell the world. You can tell it separately or together. I suggest together. The loss of the ring was an accident, and the passive/aggressive blame game that the fiance is participating in isn't a sign of a healthy state of things. He should be actively sharing in LW's story, not attacking it.