Letters to the Editor
droogoy
Published Letters: 590 Editor's Choice: 9
-
Parenting
[Read the article: Bad news dad]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"D: Are you seriously calling what you did with other's kids "parenting"? By definition, one's own kids bring with them the intangible burden of--whatever--but whatever it is, it is NOTHING like taking care of someone else's. "
BUT - I never said it was exactly "parenting". What I stated was that even the ersatz parenting I noted at least rendered an experience by which there was something as opposed to NOTHING! This is why it's daft to assert "real" parenting is "NOTHING" like taking care of someone else's. Of course, there are differences, but ALSO many similarities!
In other words, it's not a binary 0 or 1 proposition here. There is some midway room. If it was a '0' proposition as you suggest, it would mean we had no experience at all of tending to kids, period.
Look, we had to make sure these two girls had all their basic needs satisfed for a year. That meant education (community college), housing, food, medical and you name it. Who paid? We did! Just like "real" parents.
When these kids had problems we had to provide support. We couldn't just hide behind the TV screen. We had to deal with them, just like "real" parents.
So my point is, at least for one year, we DID share the experiences of a parent. I am not saying that this makes us fully certified parents in every respect, but who is? Until a parental licensing exam is forthcoming, no one can say that.
Let me also add, that as a former teacher, I also got to see kids and their behavior in other settings. Also, I saw more than parents (or kids) wanted when parent-teachers' meetings were on the agenda. What the latter disclosed to me is that most parents don't know nearly as much as they think they do!
-
HMO system did start under NIXON
[Read the article: "Sicko"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Personally, as a child of the Watergate era, I'd be very happy to blame Richard Nixon for every ill that has befallen this country since 1969. But the healthcare problems we face today didn't begin in 1971"
Not all. Certainly the badmouthing of "socialized medicine" began long before - as noted. BUT, the egregious for -profit HMO system, where more money is reaped for LESS care delivered (under something called "CAPITATION") did get started under Nixon. (And his conversation with Ehrlichmann embodies the dynamic).
Moore is absolutely spot on correct to note that the HMO system must be de-capitated if we are to get general health care for all. As long as these parasites are embedded more people will be declined care than receive it, and paper pushing will eat 25-30% of total costs.
I just heard a guy (Ginzburg) on the news claiming Americans "are culturally different from the Europeans and Canadians". Horse manure! The only difference is the U.S. corporate media have largely kept the basest truths of the current corrupt system from general scrutiny.
So long as Americans remain blinkered, they will remain the marks and dupes of the profiteers.
-
Correct, Bloomsbury!
[Read the article: "Sicko"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bloomsbury wrote:
" I still can't help smiling when I remember how he skewered Wolfowitz in 'Fahrenheit 9/11' simply by showing him licking a haircomb. You knew immediately that this man was not quite clean."
Exactly! Moore has the uncanny knack to exactly target and hit the correct image associated with whoever. The Wolfie case was classic. You knew from looking at, from how it made your skin crawl, that this slimy creature was a filthy, ego-driven weasel. His further antics, including being forced out of the World Bank, discloses how dead-on accurate Moore's sights were.
Yet people scream "Unfair!" or some such mulch over it! WHY?
Same thing with the images of Bush in Fahrenheit 9-11 making faces before his prime time announcement of the Iraq invasion. Also those seven minutes spent with 'My Pet Goat' in the classroom. Devastating! A loser and clown revealed in no uncertain terms. A superficial phony and imposter who never should have been "elected" president, and wouldn't make dog catcher in most advanced nations. Not without daddy's money.
Images don't lie: they tell a subtext, emotionally-resonant story that destroys all the ambiguation-attempting word and spin and PR. THIS is why Moore's work is so important. It peels off the layers of PR and spin and lays bare the truth in one or several devastating and accurate images.
Keep up the good work, Michael, and don't let hacks like Zacherek or anyone else pull you down. You are a national treasure, especially in parlous times like these.