Mr. Blumenthal (and editor Walsh),

I really do appreciate your perspective on issues surrounding the presidency of George W. Bush and his minions, but I must ask: do you intentionally write your opinion pieces with intent to alienate the majority of readers?

To use the Italian term "omerta" in and of itself is pretentious (I'll ignore, for the sake of this post your gratuitous Latin reference), but when you know that the term means "conspiracy of silence" (according to Merriam-Webster--and I'm sure you do) and you're discussing the actions of one individual you open yourself not only to accusations of elitism, but also accusations of levelling ad hominem attacks. Accusations which I feel quite secure in saying are valid.

Your confidence and certitude are quite welcome coming from a Democrat who so recently served in the halls of power, but I fear your tendency to extrapolate out to the nth degree and call it a sure thing (you've been predicting the immanent fall of this adminstration for years now) coupled with your insistence on using obscure, uber-intellectual references makes your point, ultimately, moot.

That is truly a shame. Because, like I said before, you have a very compelling perspective. More people should have access to it.

Good luck with that.

Sincerely,

Mr. Leonard,

First thank you for your blog. I rarely spend time with technology articles, but yours are particularly compelling and engrossing.

I would like to suggest that psychology is much less a factor now than it was in the 70's.

If this were the 1970's I could afford to live in the city as is my preference. As it is, the only housing I can afford for my family of 4 is in the suburbs, 16 miles away from the urban center. Public transportation comes within 3 miles of my home only twice a day.

I would love to be able to afford a hybrid; I would love to be able to take advantage of public transportation. Let's face it I would love to feed my family the same diet we had two years ago rather than the daily lunches of top ramen necessitated by the huge increase in gas prices. My family lives from week to week, economically speaking (perhaps day to day is more accurate as both my wife and I are self-employed). A large gas tax would be economically catastrophic for us.

The fact is that developers have unwittingly (I pray it truly was unwittingly!!!) created a society that is more dependent on auto travel than ever before, and a gas tax--while admittedly morally satisfying--would be devastating to so many.

The entire structure of our society has been shaped by our petroleum addiction and fixing only one aspect of it will only serve to shift hardship onto others in slightly different circumstances. We need an holistic approach to this, and a usage tax would hit hardest those who can least afford it.

Thanks, Joan for writing about this. I was also strangely uncomfortable about the whole thing. But, I've come up with two theories that would almost make it bearable to me:

The first is basically what Rebecca Traister spelled out in her blog: that Fonda's schtick totally reversed the host/celebrity power structure, and in so doing was compelling T.V. To this I've added the fantasy that Fonda was anxious about going solo against Stephen and decided to reverse the tables as a way to avoid her own discomfort.

The second (my favorite)[and I think way unlikely based on Colbert's seemingly authentic reaction...but hey, a guy can dream] is that Colbert was completely in on it, and went for it as a way to puncture the hot air balloon that is the right wing, male pundit's faux masculinity. I realize this is a stretch, but O'Reilly and Limbaugh and Hannity et al, have really staked their claims on a foundation of uber-manliness. I have no doubt that if any of them were subjected to a similar visit from Jane they would either completely lose control a)their he-man veneer and show themselves to be what they are (insecure children) or b)lose control of the rage/sexual repression that lives within them and respond in some manner that would shortly find them in the Don Imus, recently retired category.

Mostly though, I just don't know what to make of it. Eeesh!

Cary,

First let me say that I have read hundreds of your columns and listened to half-a-dozen or more audio clips (circa Salon '01); in that time I have read dozens of letters about fake life-scenerios being the focus of your advice. This is the first time in almost 7 years that I have thought--before reading any letters--"oh, shit! This letter is fake."

I'm pretty sure it is.

But: I DON'T CARE .

Maybe it IS straight out of King Lear...who cares? Isn't the whole point of art to show us who we are? To show us......ourselves?

Even if the story is fake, or--to any degree--hyperbolized, doesn't your advice hold true?

Maybe the LW could only express her isolation and vulnerability by co-opting characters from literature. So what?!? If they accurately align with the people in her life, then the solution may very well be one already "on the shelf".

That's putting aside the fact that this is a really entertaining letter! Seriously, if it had been a screen-play or a play, it would stand a good chance of being produced; I should think.

Oh, that we would recognize our own weaknesses in the world of fiction, much less the world of reality. We would all be much better off taking ourselves far less seriously!!!

Seriously.

jazztao