Recent letters to the WSWS

On the review of In the Bedroom

In The Bedroom would have been a very good film if it confined itself to the terrible pain and anguish a family endures when a loved one is murdered. Feelings of anger, bitterness, frustration, depression and even guilt were expressed very well by the characters in this film; and are feelings that are commonly felt by those who have experienced similar tragedies.

The question then becomes why was it necessary to contrive an absurd “legal” scenario that allows the killer to so easily get away with murder. It is safe to say in almost any jurisdiction Richard would have been charged with murder, denied bail, and in many states subject to the death penalty. The facts were that Richard had previously threatened and assaulted both Frank and Natalie, and thereafter broke into Natalie’s home armed with a gun and shot Richard. Under these facts even if one believed Richard’s gun “accidentally” discharged or if it had gone off during a struggle, Richard would still be guilty of murder.

This film therefore attempts to reinforce the right-wing myth that the criminal justice system is designed to protect criminals; and that until society has stronger laws and courts willing to enforce them, then real justice, including the death penalty, must be meted out by law abiding citizens.


22 January 2002

On Enron


First let me say that I’ve enjoyed the analysis of news and events provided by the WSWS for several years now. Irrespective of my own political views, I think it is impossible (and irresponsible) to understand political and social events without using the tools of the Marxist/socialist dialectic.

Regarding your coverage of the Enron mess, I would like to see some discussion of the significance of the separation of ownership and control of capital. The “management culture” discussed by many economists seems to parallel the business culture you have identified as being instrumental to the abuses typified by Enron’s managers.

How does the emergence of a class that exploits BOTH workers AND the traditional capitalist class fit into a more traditional understanding of class structures and dynamics? My first thought is that this is some sort of bizarre radioactive mutant bourgeois monster fit for a 1950s horror film, but my second thought is that my first thought is gross oversimplification.

I’m looking forward to reading your continuing coverage.



22 January 2002

On health care in Canada

Your readers should be aware of a few things because I feel that your article is a little misleading:

1. Under the Canada Health Act, it is illegal for provinces to charge individuals for health care services. There are, however, some services that are not covered. For example, in Alberta, the patient pays 50 percent of any chiropractic service to a maximum of $250. Anything over $250 the patient pays 100 percent. Same with physiotherapy. A physiotherapist determines how serious your injury is. If it falls under specific government guidelines, than it is covered. If not, you pay. HOWEVER, any doctors’ appointments, any emergency care, etc., are all covered under our health care.

2. In Canada, doctors are already “private entities” set up as corporations, etc.

3. In Alberta, it is also illegal to extra charge (with the above exceptions). Under Bill 11, the government clearly indicates that, should private clinics be set up, the costs will be covered by Alberta Health, since the private clinics cannot charge more than Alberta Health Care covers and the service they provide must be proven to be less costly and more efficient than what happens in hospitals.

So, I believe that the entire picture should be covered. If Alberta insists on privatizing, then they will have to opt out of the National Canada Health Act and lose any funding coming from the federal government. That won’t be any serious loss, since the federal government has pretty much opted out anyway. They only cover about 11-13 percent (depending on who you believe) of the coverage. When government medicare was first implemented, the agreement was that it would be funded 50/50 between the federal and provincial governments. So, if any one should be to blame for our whole situation, the federal government certainly can take its share.



Edmonton, Alberta

22 January 2002

On the Middle East

Dear Editor,

In the murky morality of the so-called realpolitik underpinning the short-sighted US policy in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, you are one of the few voices in the world today that has the guts to tell the truth as it is and put to shame the apologists for the criminal acts of the Zionist state and murderous bullies like current the prime minister.


23 January 2002

On the WSWS

Thanks for your newspaper. It is very informative and tells us the facts.

Reagan started the plan for big corporations to rule our nation; it was expanded during Bush’s reign and now it is being carried out big time. Never in our nation’s history have so many things been done to give our nation to the REGIME that hopes to rule the world. Unless something drastic happens to expose all this we have no hope, for THEIR goal is to RULE.

Please keep us here in America up to date on all the facts. Again, thanks


Gaffney, South Carolina

23 January 2002

On the anthrax scare

Concerning the article about the origin of anthrax: I have firmly believed all along the anthrax came from the Bush administration and probably the Defense Department. The anthrax had a dual purpose: to murder Senators Daschle and Leahy and terrorize the American people into believing the lies put out by the Bush administration. We know the war was planned before the WTC attack, which, by the way, had complicity from the Bush administration. We are living under a Hitler-like regime, and just what can we do about it now? I really appreciate receiving WSWS articles and pass them along to people I think are interested.




23 January 2002