Dear Joan,

I tend to agree with you. I understand the sentiments of many readers who feel that Palin deserves whatever she gets, considering her own despicable conduct. But I do find these kind of pranks to be unfortunate and cruel. I understand the argument that pranking powerful people has a legitimacy that making fun of ordinary or weak/disadvantaged people does not. But cruelty is still cruelty. I, too, could not listen to this.

The comedians who did this said that it took them several days of calling to get the right number. The one who spoke to Palin also put on an exaggerated French accent and said that he was really surprised that Palin never caught on to the fact that it was a prank.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Salon,

The CBC just ran a story where it compared GM wages to Honda employee wages. (I'm doing this from memory, so please forgive any inaccuracies). GM pays about $73/worker, vs. about $49 worker for Honda. It breaks down like this: the GM workers make about $28/hr vs. $26/hr for Honda. The GM people are paid about an additional $25/hr for various health benefits vs. about $20/hr for the Honda employees. The real difference in the cost per worker is on the "legacy benefits" where the GM people end up costing a lot more. I don't know anything about the car industry, but this seems to be money paid to keep retired people going and, I assume, money that goes to workers' pensions. Of course, the Big Three have also been around a lot longer and have a lot more retired worker than the non-American companies. So, in short, the CBC story backs up the idea that non-unionized and unionized employees don't make that much different in terms of take-home pay.

Sincerely

Shaun

Dear LW,

I think that Cary's advice on this is very good. Apologize to your brother. You broke your promise to him (apparently repeatedly, given that you started "dating" the roommate) and, by doing so you caused him a great deal of pain. The blame in this situation is entirely yours and you should accept responsibility. After you have offered an unequivocal apology, then all you can do is let it go and allow your brother time to heal and deal with the situation in his own way. You can't do any more than that.

This being said, I think that your brother may have control issues. Or it may be - as others have suggested - that there was a lot more going on between your brother and this other man. At the least, your brother clearly believed that the roommate was sleazy and "disrespectful of woman" and he did not want you to be the topic of crass conversation or whatever else the roommate had done to give your brother this opinion. None of this changes the fact that you are at fault.

I think the first respondent hit on a very important point: you broke your promise and, more, you thought it was alright to do so so long as your brother did not find out. That says a lot about your trustworthiness as a person. If you really do believe that all that matters is that others remain ignorant of your indiscretions, then you really cannot be trusted. You demonstrated that to your brother in a very graphic way. It is a point that you may need to address for yourself.

Sincerely,

Shaun

Dear Editor,

I think that the young woman's decision to request an "eye for an eye" - literally - is unfortunate, if understandable. I also think it's terrible that Iranian law allows for this. But, at the same time, this is surely no worse than capital punishment. The strongest supporters of CP usually argue the eye-for-an-eye logic, and CP is still supported by a substantial majority of Americans, despite the obvious problems that it poses to human decency (not to mention the uncomfortable reality that lots of innocent people have ended up on death row). Admittedly, the administering of CP has become more "humane" over the years, but the problem remains.

It's fine to cast stones at the "barbarism" of the Iranian system, but remember that Americans are living in a glass house on this one.

Sincerely,

Shaun

Dear Sarah,

Just a small point: to me, watching other people self-destruct or humiliate themselves was never "funny". It strikes me that, whatever the root causes of our fascination with celebrities, finding humour in the misfortune of others says a lot about the dysfunctions of the rest of us.

Sincerely,

Shaun