[ad_1]<\/p>\n
To the Editor:<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cAn Assault on the Truth<\/a>,\u201d by Rebecca Solnit (Opinion guest essay, Sunday Review, Jan. 9), masks the political reality our country faces. I object to Ms. Solnit\u2019s focus on gullibility as a factor in the right\u2019s disavowal of facts.<\/p>\n Donald Trump does not change people\u2019s minds. The beliefs of people on the right are immutable. They are the opposite of gullible.<\/p>\n Mr. Trump and others simply create convenient tales readily acceptable to an existing psyche. It\u2019s easy enough to do. Focus on white privilege and the demonization of \u201cothers,\u201d and espouse individual rights to the exclusion of all else. You will then have a very serviceable electorate at the ready to hand you power.<\/p>\n Any thought that the right\u2019s psyche is in any way malleable needs to be abandoned. Outvoting the right is the only way forward to preserve democracy \u2014 and, of course, that may not be enough.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Ned Gardner To the Editor:<\/strong><\/p>\n Rebecca Solnit does not discuss the role of the media in spreading lies among Republicans. There is Fox News, which has become a propaganda front for Donald Trump, before, during and since his presidency. And there is the plethora of right-wing internet sites, whose most outrageous lies are often repeated and brought into the mainstream of political opinion by Republican office holders.<\/p>\n The stream of misinformation is pervasive. Democrats have participated in this, too, even if not to the extent that Republicans have. It takes motivation and effort to sort fact from fiction, and for many people that is too hard.<\/p>\n Michael E. Mahler To the Editor:<\/strong><\/p>\n As a clinical therapist who worked in addiction treatment facilities, I was reminded each day of the basic human need for approval and acceptance. We all seek to feel a part of our community, our family and our country. This promotes interdependence and solidarity, and generally strengthens our social bonds.<\/p>\n The need for approval, however, can be so great (even desperate) that we surrender ourselves to the group in exchange for the validation it offers. The group embrace is very reassuring \u2014 particularly if one\u2019s self-image is a little shaky \u2014 and eliminates the need for the thought and self-reflection that take time and effort, and insist that, sometimes, we stand alone in our ideals and beliefs.<\/p>\n An integral part of the addictive personality, the need for approval further explains the gullibility and cynicism that Rebecca Solnit describes so accurately.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Gary Golio To the Editor:<\/strong><\/p>\n I thought this was an excellent opinion piece, along with other similar pieces you have published. At this point, however, the point has been more than adequately made. The logical next question: What do we do about it? I for one would welcome some commentary on that issue.<\/p>\n I am myself completely flummoxed. How do you reason with, and reach out to, someone who believes only what they want to believe, no matter how cuckoo?<\/p>\n Douglas Reeves To the Editor:<\/strong><\/p>\n Re \u201cWhat Do You Think You Should Be Paid?<\/a>\u201d (Sunday Business, Jan. 2):<\/p>\n Massachusetts<\/a> was the first state to prohibit prospective employers from asking about applicants\u2019 compensation history before making a job offer. In response, we began asking possible employees about compensation expectations. We were initially surprised that this created new problems.<\/p>\n Some women voiced lower expectations than men for the same job. Others proposed salaries lower than average market value and awkwardly tried to revise them later. But declining to engage in salary discussions is also not an optimal strategy, as prospective employers want to make offers that are likely to be accepted and match relatively closely to expectations.<\/p>\n First, be prepared for this question. If you are caught by surprise, there are several options: Applicants can ask the salary range of the position, defer until they have completed their research or cite the market percentile they are aiming for.<\/p>\n For equal pay legislation to have the desired effect, education and resources are also required to help women learn how to expect and deftly handle these salary conversations.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Alexa B. Kimball To the Editor:<\/strong><\/p>\n Re \u201cBeing Homeless Cost Me $54,000<\/a>,\u201d by Lori Teresa Yearwood (Opinion guest essay, Sunday Review, Jan. 2):<\/p>\n Yes, homelessness causes profound problems for homeless people with regard to trauma, debt, mental health and so much more. But the costs are not limited to the homeless. Society pays a huge amount for homelessness.<\/p>\n According to the Innovation for Justice Program<\/a> at the James E. Rogers College of Law at the University of Arizona, the cost of homelessness<\/a> to Pima County (where Tucson is located) in 2018 was $64,740,105 for 9,984 families evicted that year. The costs of homelessness include increased child welfare cases, medical and emergency room visits, shelter fees, involvement in the juvenile and adult criminal justice system, mental health crises and more.<\/p>\n Clearly, assisting the homeless with housing, work and clearing debt so that they can be productive and happier members of society is far cheaper. It is time for all of us to work toward ending this scourge.<\/p>\n
Apex, N.C.<\/p>\n
Los Angeles<\/p>\n
Briarcliff Manor, N.Y.<\/p>\n
Raleigh, N.C.<\/p>\nSalary Negotiations for Women<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Boston
The writer is president and chief executive of Harvard Medical Faculty Physicians at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and a professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School.<\/em><\/p>\nThe Costs of Homelessness for Society<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n