To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Vicki Roush
Date: May 16, 2003
If you come to Key West for a visit, your first few cocktails are on ME.
Love your site and grieve with you for Ashleigh Moore.
Lots of working-class lefties at the bar. You'll like it.
Signed,
Vicki Roush
Green Parrot Bar
Key West, Fla.
To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Murray Dubin
Date: April 1, 2003
You made mention last week of the Philadelphia Inquirer's "Conversations on War" series. [Ed.: See "'Conversations on War': With Rittenhouse Reader Susan Madrak," The Rittenhouse Review, March 26.]
As its [Ed.: the series's] author, I wanted you to know that the series began on Wednesday, Oct[ober] 29, and has appeared weekly except for the week of January 1[, 2003]. The interview [conducted] on Wednesday, April 2, will be the [published on the] 22nd.
Murray Dubin
Philadelphia Inquirer
Philadelphia
To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: V.W.
Date: April 1, 2003
Speaking of continually disappointing, you omitted my senator, Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). [Ed.: See "Is Your State Being Underserved? Senators of the 108th Congress," The Rittenhouse Review, March 30.]
Sen. Feinstein can speak very well but vote very badly when the vote counts: e.g., pro Bush tax cut, pro rollover for Bush resolution on Iraq in spite of overwhelming opposition from her constituents. My other senator, Barbara Boxer (D), and my representative, Susan Davis (D), both took the courageous high road and voted against conceding authority to President George W. Bush.
To quote Sen. Feinstein's Senate floor speech of October 10, 2002 regarding her position on the Iraq resolution:
I serve as the Senior Senator from California, representing 35 million people. That is a formidable task. People have weighed in by the tens of thousands. If I were just to cast a representative vote based on those who have voiced their opinions with my office and with no other factors, I would have to vote against this resolution.
But as a member of the Intelligence Committee, as someone who has read and discussed and studied the history of Iraq, the record of obfuscation and the terror Saddam Hussein has sown, one comes to the conclusion that he remains a consequential threat.
Although the ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda are tenuous, there should be no question that his entire government is forged and held together by terror.
In other words, Sen. Feinstein knows more than her constituents and their opinions are irrelevant.
By the way, 2002 was not an election year for her, so a difficult reelection campaign wasn't a factor.
V.W.
To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Rick O'Leary
Date: March 31, 2003
Other bloggers, Mary Beth Williams of Wampum, for example, may disagree, but Maine should not be on the list. [Ed.: See "Is Your State Being Underserved? Senators of the 108th Congress," The Rittenhouse Review, March 30.]
Sens. Olympia Snowe (R) and Susan Collins (R) were instrumental in beating back the special protection for Eli Lilly & Co. last fall. Sen. Snowe was a leader of the group of moderates who defeated the President's $726 billion dollar tax cut proposal at a time of ever growing deficits and war. And both senators voted against oil drilling in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
I live in Georgia. I wish we had senators as good as Snowe and Collins.
Dwight Meredith
P.L.A. - A Journal of Politics, Law & Autism
To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Steven desJardins
Date: March 31, 2003
You left out Washington, D.C. [Ed.: See "Is Your State Being Underserved? Senators of the 108th Congress," The Rittenhouse Review, March 30.]
If not having any senators isn't embarrassing, then what is?
Signed,
Steven desJardins
To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Rick O'Leary
Date: March 31, 2003
Inasmuch as Sen. Russ Feingold (D) is single-handedly responsible for Attorney General John Ashcroft's confirmation, and whereas Sen. Herb Kohl (D) is a moderate non-entity, despite being rich enough to take a real stand every now and then and weather the storm…I nominate my state: Wisconsin. [Ed.: See "Is Your State Being Underserved? Senators of the 108th Congress," The Rittenhouse Review, March 30.]
Rick O'Leary
Milwaukee
To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: M.P.
Date: March 17, 2003
Thank you for your recent post about the essay published in The Wall Street Journal praising insider trading. (See "We're The Wall Street Journal! We'll Print Anything!," The Rittenhouse Review, March 17, 2003.)
These guys are what George Soros calls "market fundamentalists." Anything goes -- On the assumption the market will adjust to insure fairness for all. That, of course, is completely wrong.
There's a huge problem associated with informing the public in a timely manner (say, about a company's "unreliable" bookkeeping), and Mr. and Mrs. America don't have the time to study the data and make decisions based on it. That's why we have regulation: Regulation makes an efficient market possible by ensuring there are common financial practices that we don't need to include in our analysis of a particular company's condition and outlook.
Anybody who wants a no-holds-barred approach to the market is merely making it easier for the scam artists to ply their trade. This extreme libertarianism leads to things like non-FDA-approved drugs (let the customer learn about and decide who to trust), unsafe products (if you get hurt, sue in court), and so on. [Ed.: Though the same "market fundamentalists" are now eagerly at work to limit liability for product manufacturers, physicians, and others.]
The after-the-fact pursuit of justice this philosophy leads to huge transaction costs that burden the economy writ large.
But as bad as the Journal article is, I think it does some good, demonstrating that Wall Street, or a portion thereof, is still unrepentant despite the massive scandals uncovered during the past several years.
No wonder the average investor continues to shy away from the market.
M.P.
(Name withheld by request.)
To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: David Salkin [ d_salkin@msn.com ]
Date: March 21, 2003
I must say that since you started talking about running for the senate, I have almost completely stopped visiting your site. I don't know why exactly, and it doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for you (because I probably would). I guess it's because I don't expect fair commentary on politics from someone wanting to be on the inside.
Best of luck with it anyway.
David Salkin
To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Rich Fritzson
Date: March 21, 2003
I recommend you try attending one of the larger anti-war marches or demonstrations. (See, "Who Marches Against War in a Cold Rain?", The Rittenhouse Review, March 20, 2003.)
I went to Washington, D.C., in October and again in January. I'm 49 years old. I don't like attending protest marches. I didn't like it during the Vietnam era and I don't really like it much now. They make me feel powerless, like I'm shouting at someone who has already left the room, slammed the door and locked it behind them. Nevertheless, I don't want my children (ages 19 and 16) to share that feeling.
When there are hundreds of thousands of people protesting there, are more than "true believers" around. We marched alongside people of all ages. For a while, I helped carry a banner held up by 10 people none of whom was younger than me. There were former hippies, current hippies, college students, lots of former military, senior businessmen, mothers and grandmothers, fathers and grandfathers.
We met a woman who had brought her 10-year-old grandson. She was legally blind; her thick glasses gave her an owlish appearance. He said they were going to look out for each other.
We learned something. We were marching to the Navy Yard along a street on which I'd never walked before. The crowd began to chant, "What do we want?…Peace!", etc. But on the sidewalks, the observers, the people who lived on that street, shouted "Justice!" whenever we shouted "Peace!" And I knew they were right.
Of course, being at a newsworthy event and then reading about it later teaches you to distrust what you read about other events. And we all need regular reminding of that.
One thing we all noticed on those days in Washington, one of which was very cold, was that no representative of the government, no congressman, no senator, no member of the executive branch, no judge, came out to address the crowd. It made it quite clear that no one in the government represented us.
I wasn't planning to mention this but it seems like a good closing:
If you decide to run for Senate against Arlen Specter, I'll send you a check. Don't get excited. I'm nobody. I'm only good for a few hundred dollars in political contributions. But I live in the conservative suburbs. I'll go door to door. I'll try to inspire political action in our church. I'll write letters. And I'll vote for you.
Rich Fritzson
Paoli, Pa.
To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: A Boston Attorney
Date: March 17, 2003
Your readers may not be aware that Henry G. Manne has been making his argument about insider trading in more or less the same form since 1966. [Ed.: See "We're The Wall Street Journal! We'll Print Anything!", The Rittenhouse Review, March 17, 2003.) The argument, while radical, has a certain plausibility, and accordingly has provoked a great deal of productive thinking and writing on the subject of market efficiency. However, the consensus view is that insider trading does indeed harm stock market efficiency. The only serious disagreement among most authorities is whether it hurts a little or a lot.
Robert Clark, a professor of corporate law at Harvard Law School who is now dean of that institution, addressed Manne's arguments in detail in his 1987 treatise on corporate law. With respect to Manne's claim that insider trading provides incentives for managers, Clark remarks, "It is simply implausible to believe that explicit executive compensation schemes are inadequate to induce managers to work vigorously for corporations." I doubt our experience with executive compensation over the last 15 years has changed Dean Clark's opinion on that subject.
(Also, Frank Easterbrook, a professor of corporate law at the University of Chicago, appointed by former president Ronald Reagan to a federal court of appeals, in 1981 observed that where managers engage in inside trading, they actually have perverse incentives to engage in risky ventures: If a risky bet pays off the manager can capture the gain by insider trading and if it doesn't the shareholders bear the cost. Clark refers to this as the "heads-I-win-tails-you-lose nature of insider trading.")
Clark further notes, "Insider trading allows managers to profit from their bad management….By using advance knowledge that the company's fortunes have taken a turn for the worse, they can sell their shares and avoid participating with other shareholders in the disaster."
This is the allegation currently directed at Sam Waksal of ImClone Systems Inc. and his friend, Martha Stewart. While I have no knowledge of the details of that particular case, Clark is plainly correct that there is no social benefit from permitting someone in that situation to profit from their advance knowledge of bad news.
Clark agrees with Manne's claim that insider trading helps to correct prices -- indeed, any trade on an open market has that effect. But Clark goes on to cite the landmark 1984 paper by Ronald Gilson and Reiner Kraakman, arguing there are far more efficient ways of ensuring that a company's stock price reflects material information about the company, such as requiring that the company's officers publicly disclose such information. That is in fact what the federal securities laws require.
(Gilson and Kraakman are themselves noted authorities on corporate law. The former is now at Stanford Law School and the latter is at Harvard Law, but I believe they wrote "The Mechanisms Of Market Efficiency" when they were both on the faculty of Yale University Law School.)
In short, a great deal has been learned in the last 30-odd years from thoughtful consideration of Manne's once-provocative suggestion. Unfortunately, if unsurprisingly, none of that is conveyed in Manne's essay for The Wall Street Journal.
Signed,
An Attorney (Name withheld by request.)
Boston
To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Annie Cataldo
Date: March 6, 2003
Yes, in response to your recent question, disabled Americans face discrimination daily, and they have one hell of a case to prove when they do.
I have permanently dislocated joints. My past employers did not want to spend a dime extra to accommodate me, unless I complained and mentioned the provisions of the Americans with Discrimination Act.
I have had to specifically ask for "anti-fatigue" rubber mats to stand on in laboratories where I have worked. I once worked as a federal contractor in an office that would not provide me with a chair needed for my degenerated disks, and I was assigned to work in a cold hallway. But it was a job -- with health benefits. How many choices do I have?
And I have been cursed and glared at often as I park in disabled parking spaces. Although I am disabled, it doesn't appear that way to the casual observer, in part because I'm not in a wheelchair. All too often at my last job I would find culprits in the disabled parking spaces, and management did nothing after three complaints. I had to quit.
I have had to quit jobs that would not accommodate my needs. But try proving their lack of cooperation with their employees' needs, let alone their lack of compliance with ADA. Most employees will tolerate their bosses' discriminatory attitudes so as not to "stir the pot." Besides, one doesn't receive unemployment benefits when one quits a job.
The disabled don't get many breaks in the real world. And I find it quite telling that we live in a nation where the only people to have guaranteed medical service are prisoners. Try being a disabled woman in Oregon, which I've begun calling the "Mississippi of the West."
This is definitely a silent form of discrimination. It's hard for disabled people even to tell their employers they are disabled, a reluctance I have experienced in the past, though thankfully I still have the right of privacy.
Thanks for bringing up this discussion.
Signed,
Annie Cataldo
Hood River, Ore.
To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Mark Gibbens
Date: March 4, 2003
Thanks for the Lysistrata excerpts. You've prompted me to read the whole thing once I have time.
Unfortunately, I didn't see any commentary here or elsewhere on the irony inherent in the play, whether Aristophanes intended it or not. It is, of course, pure escapist fantasy. Nothing and no one ever succeeded in stopping the Peloponnesian War, which dragged on for 30 years or so for no good reason, with ultimately catastrophic results for both protagonists.
I hate to see the opportunity lost for a good lesson on the folly of war, with a special emphasis on its unexpected consequences.
Signed,
Mark Gibbens
To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: J.F.
Date: February 24, 2003
I read major portions of the Washington Post puff piece on Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.) (See "Whatever Happened to the Washington Post?", The Rittenhouse Review, February 23), in between frequent visits to the kitchen to wash the saliva out of my mouth and two quick trips to the bathroom, just in case the rolling and unsettlement in my stomach produced a purge. No luck there.
As someone who has been a proud resident of a sleepy, backwater, 19th century southern state for 13 years, I was appalled. Appalled by Jeb! and his apparently inherited lust to destroy representative government, as his "smarter and wiser" brother worked to bring about in Texas before moving on to bigger and better victims.
Your comment about the article makes me feel you're as cynical about a bought and paid for national press as I am. It's hard to believe the Post once was considered a crusading leader in its profession, isn't it? How the mighty have fallen.
Like all of the Bush family, Gov. Bush is self-isolated. That's a defense mechanism they've developed to avoid direct questions about their extra-constitutional actions, although why anyone would examine their track records and consider the family "moralistic" is beyond me. Since Prescott Bush's conviction for trafficking with the enemy in wartime, the entire clan has been a beacon for crime. Lacking morals and ethics, it seems to me.
With all that inherited guilt, plus the self-knowledge of their crimes over the last 20 years, it's also hardly surprising they're "emotionally brittle." Why, Jeb!, our state's great paragon of family values even failed to emotionally support his daughter when she was to appear in court for sentencing. Instead, he showed his commitment to family values by appearing at a campaign fund-raiser instead.
Disgraceful indeed!
Signed,
J.F.
Florida
To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: K.D.
Date: February 18, 2003
As a historian and a Southerner, and as an opponent of publicly funded honoring of the Confederate flag, I am baffled by your post, “Whatever Happened to the ‘New South’?”
You claim that the New South may have been a myth. To back up your thesis, you rely on an online poll. How does an online poll prove that the New South is a myth? Let me repeat the caveat underneath the poll: NOTE: This is NOT a scientific poll. It only reflects what some of our online users are expressing on a given day. Somehow that must have escaped your attention.
The New South is certainly modern. Anyone who has spent time in Atlanta, Jacksonville[,] and Chapel Hill, with their architecture, fast[-]food joints[,] and endless traffic, can tell you that.
Honestly, having spent time down South and in New York and New England, I found better race relations here in the South where whites and African-Americans generally deal with each other than in Manhattan or Hartford where whites and blacks are generally segregated.
Despite the best wishes of observers who went out of their way to look for a progressive South, from Frederick Law Olmsted to W.J.Cash to C. Vann Woodward, the South has never been and is not progressive. Certainly few people can even call Democrats in the South progressives. Most are Democratic Leadership Council types in the Clinton and Gore mold. The New South embraced business and lured jobs and companies out of the Rust Belt and into the Sun Belt as opposed to the Old South[,] which stressed the agrarian life. There are numerous books, articles, web sites talking about the neo-Confederate movement that you could have cited. You relied on a selective on-line poll.
We shall see what happens in Georgia. I suspect the 1956 flag people will win by the skins of their teeth. But, with a close race, no front runner [sic][,] and at least two major African-American candidates seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, Democrats could flock to the polls and bury the old flag. We shall see. I will say that the new flag has a better chance in March than it would in November.
I went to your site through the American Prospect and enjoyed it, despite my problem with your methods here.
Signed,
K.D.
Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:
First, let me assure you that I did not “claim” that what is called the “New South” is a myth. Rather, I wrote, “maybe it was just a myth all along” (in the sub-headline) and “maybe the modern and progressive ‘New South’ was just a myth all along” at the end of the post. These are queries, suggestions, even, but not “claims.”
Second, I am fully aware that online polls are not scientific. I didn’t think it was necessary to repeat this widely known and accepted fact to my readers who, I assure you, are sufficiently sophisticated as to not need to be repeated that standard disclaimer. Regardless, I assume you are at least slightly troubled by the results to date of the Savannah Morning News poll, as I was and as were many readers who submitted their own comments.
I cited the poll not in an attempt to “back up my thesis” -- no thesis whatsoever was presented -- but only to alert readers to results to-date at the Savannah paper’s poll. I haven’t a clue, at least as of yet, whether this particular poll accurately represents the views of voters in southern Georgia, let alone the state as a whole.
Nonetheless, I found the tally disturbing and disappointing. And, frankly, I long since have grown tired of southerners reassuring the rest of the country that things have changed, that there is a “New South,” when there exists ample evidence to suggest otherwise.
After all, long after the happy proclamation of the “New South,” and the region’s greedy intake of whatever commercial venture came its way, South Carolina continued to send Strom Thurmond to the U.S. Senate, even when this plainly racist freak could barely be counted among the quick.
And North Carolina, which for reasons that escape me entirely enjoys an even more progressive reputation than the rest of the greater southeastern region, seemed to take great pride in being represented in the U.S. Senate by Jesse Helms.
Let’s be serious. The fact that the 19th century relics that all too many southerners would have -- and wish to have -- appear on their state flags is even considered a topic worthy of conversation in civilized society tells us much about the political climate in the region.
None of this is to suggest that states outside of the southeast are faultless or blameless, though your contention that life is better for African-Americans in the South than it is in New York or in Hartford, Conn., is dubious at best.
And I must say that I am surprised to see you refer to Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley-Braun as “two major African-American candidates seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.” If either remains a viable candidate by the time Georgia holds its primary, I will be shocked.
Thank you for writing and I hope you will continue to visit the Review.
To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: F.E.
Date: February 14, 2003
While it seems to be a pastime that will not die, mocking the French for military ineptitude ignores a great deal of reality.
To use only their experience in World War II, the French army took almost 600,000 casualties (including Free French forces) during the invasion by Nazi Germany, 250,000 of them KIAs [killed in action]. Consider that this took place over the course of about one month, and compare those losses to the 900,000 casualties the U.S. army suffered over the course of the entire war.
Certainly there were strategic miscalculations on the part of French war-planners, but these were shared by a great number of European countries at the time that also capitulated quickly after being attacked. We never hear about those cowardly Poles, Danes, Belgians, Dutch, or Norwegians while the chest thumping is going on.
Just a thought.
I enjoy your site a great deal. Thank you.
Signed,
F.E.
To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: John Isbell [ clayisbell@earthlink.net ]
Date: February 14, 2003
I go to your blog for the links. After reading that French thing you posted, that’s the last time I read what you write.
Signed,
John Isbell
To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: Robert L. Belichick
Date: February 5, 2003
Thank you. Thank you. Your post on Eric Alterman’s appearance on “Crossfire” was perfect.
I know there aren’t many people who could actually appreciate how pathetic Tucker Carlson and the other wing-nut, L. Brent Bozell, were, but their blathering about “it’s a lie” when one delivers facts is so Rush Limbaugh.
I have to laugh when Carlson attacks anyone who hints on categorizing someone as it being an example of his opponent “calling them names,” when his whole shtick is, as a first line of attack, call someone a name. Gosh, it feels so high school debate team.
Signed,
Robert L. Belichick
Chicago
Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:
“So Rush Limbaugh”? “So high school”? You, sir, are too generous.
To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: K.T.B.
Date: February 3, 2003
Those of you with fabulous manes (and you’ve made sure to point out that fact previously, you bastard) can’t understand that Matt Lauer suffers from the worst-case scenario of male pattern baldness.
He has neither the gracefully receding hairline nor the distinguished bald spot in the rear, both of which can be framed to advantage by skilled hair stylists. Rather, Lauer is suffering the uniform thinning of the entire top of the head, for which there is no dignified style available, other than the full head shave.
Perhaps in ten years he will have the chrome-dome book-ended by flowing locks that gives one the look of a serious man, but until then, if he lets his hair grow beyond a half-inch he is doomed to look like the Nicholas Cage character in “Adaptation.”
You may not agree with the haircut, but you must admit that he has little choice. I hope you will respond with sympathy rather than ridicule.
And yes, I’m headed toward the Lauer stage myself, so it hits home hard.
Signed,
K.T.B.
Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:
When I wrote about Lauer last week, remarking upon his “new” hairstyle, I did so after having seen him on the “Today” show for just a few moments. I did not notice the creeping male-pattern baldness to which K.T.B. refers. Thus, my comments were not intended as disparagement, only surprise at the sudden change in Lauer’s appearance.
I assure K.T.B., and all readers, that my intention was not to mock Lauer for the unfortunate event of his hair loss, nor anyone else sharing in this development.
In fact, while I do continue to enjoy, at age 40, a full head of very thick -- almost annoyingly thick -- and fast-growing hair, none of it gray yet, by the way, I have for more than a decade made a point of not making light of the hair loss experienced by others.
As my eldest brother, who has seen some modest hair loss, once pointed out, doing so would be impolite and impolitic as, in his words, “That’s just the kind of thing that can come around and bite you in the butt later.”
Absolutely true. I know that day will arrive eventually and I do not intend to leave myself open to ridicule for having made light of the history of other men.
And so, while I am grateful for the current status of my mane, I do not and will not intentionally tease those not so fortunate.
I guess I should say, though, probably to the disgust and dismay of K.T.B. and others, that over the weekend I shaved off all of the hair on my head, just to see what it would look like. No reason to be upset: It will all be back within a few more days.
To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: S. G.
Date: January 28, 2003
In Boston, because our distinguished institutions of higher learning haven’t built enough dormitory space to keep up with their enrollments, students have been renting apartments off campus and they -- or more precisely, their parents -- have been bidding up the rents so high that working families can’t afford to live in the city. [See “Quick Takes,” final item, “Kids Today.”]
I will never forget the morning that I walked out the door of my basement apartment and discovered that someone had puked out a third-floor window.
As far as I’m concerned, Boston University is welcome to give single rooms to its students. Heck, give them room service and mints on their pillows every night. Just keep them off the streets!
Signed,
S. G.
Boston
To: The Rittenhouse Review
From: M. B.
Date: January 26, 2003
I almost never agree with Norah Vincent but I think she’s right about SSRIs [See fifth item, “Take a Powder.”] (selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors).
Obviously for people who are clinically depressed, they’re a real break-through. But it didn’t seem Vincent’s column was aimed at these folks. By definition, clinical depression happens for no good reason. It’s not clinical depression if you’re quite reasonably bummed-out because you’ve just been diagnosed (as Vincent was) with multiple sclerosis. It doesn’t matter; if you’re inadequately cheerful for whatever reason, someone wants to write you a prescription.
I’m not inclined to depression. However in the last few years Prozac has been recommended to me on the occasions of my being unhappy over a messy divorce, a spell of unemployment, and the discovery that my mother had been covering up for my ex’s adultery. The idea seemed to be that wanting (respectively) some transitional time, a job, or an apology, or any sort of real-life solution is so unseemly; surely taking some “happy pills” would be nicer?
It’s not just me. Prozac has been prescribed for every freaking thing. Run “Fluoxetine” and “case report” together on MedLine and see what pops up. Are you obese? Maybe a bit overweight? Think you might become overweight? How about anorexic? Do you engage in any sort of sexual activity that someone else might find objectionable? (Since Fluoxetine is a notorious anti-aphrodisiac, it’s been prescribed for every sexual behavior you can think of, including being gay.) Are you a hypochondriac? A thief? A rapist? Autistic? Excessively religious? Did Sept. 11 make you sad? Here, take these.
It’s hard to overdose on SSRIs, they don’t interact with many other drugs, and their users usually like them, so there’s no penalty for prescribing them inappropriately. And honestly, I’m not sure how you’d impose one without stepping on a zillion toes, messing with patient privacy, etc. But SSRIs aren’t benign. They’re a class of strong psychotropic drugs generally taken daily for years at a clip.
As an analogy: Marijuana could be similarly described -- a strong psychotropic drug, not toxic or interactive and well liked by its users. If pot were legal and you had a condition treatable by being mildly stoned on marijuana 24/7, the effects on your personality (and the possible long-term effect of such a treatment), would be subtle (as with Prozac) but not negligible; it’s not something a sensible person would do without good reason.
Ironically, the trade-off for not having unattractive feelings is, as Vincent describes, displaying unattractive behavior. It seems (and I’m speculating here but Vincent makes the same observation) as if the depression-causing intellectual mechanism that these drugs interfere with also mediates some useful inhibitions. So I see these folks -- who, it must be admitted, are usually quite satisfied with their medication -- passing wind as if guiding fog-bound ships, regaling all present with the details of, including . . . [their] arrest record or spouse’s sexual proclivities, chattering noisily after the theatre lights dim, etc.
I know for some people a drug that makes you occasionally act like a bit of a jackass is a small price to pay for not being immobilized by abnormally despondent feelings. However, someone who falls into this category might not be aware of how casually these drugs are pushed on people whose despondency is a normal and fleeting reaction to the occasional [harsh realities] of this life.
M. B.
New York
Jim Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review responds:
Although I believe M. B. has offered some valuable observations in this letter, given my familiarity with SSRIs and many other classes of anti-depressants and psychotropic medications arising from personal experience and considerable research, there are many arguments and suppositions that, as in Vincent’s Los Angeles Times column, I believe are misguided, erroneous, and completely false.
This truly is a topic that I would prefer to address in-depth at the Review at a later date.
For now, allow me to say that “depression” is the most poorly chosen word in the field of mental illness, perhaps in the entire realm of human health. I think the number of people who truly understand the magnitude of this disease is quite few -- and all too many of them are already dead by their own hands. I have yet to read a memoir of depression that comes close to relaying the hell that I have experienced for most of my life.
Psychopharmacologists will admit there is much they do not understand about how SSRIs work. And psychiatry has a history of using drugs to make diagnoses -- to which drug the patient responds determines what his problem actually is. I believe this is the reason researchers and physicians are trying SSRIs on so many conditions. Also not known is why different SSRIs work differently on different patients, considering the drugs’ chemical similarities.
My hope is that no one suffering from genuine clinical depression (something far more serious and debilitating than a general state of sadness, disappointment, or “the blues”) will refrain for even a single moment from seeking the help of a physician -- and a physician who understands this disease is a malfunction of the brain as an organ of the human body and not the mind as a figment of the novelist’s, or Sigmund Freud’s, imagination -- before waiting for his condition to improve on its own or wasting hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars on worthless “talk” therapy.