Dear Editor,

Ms. Grey sounds like an intelligent and capable young woman. Her response to the question on whether or not pornography degrades women, however, is a bit trite, if predictable. I think that a strong argument can be made that pornography does degrade everyone involved in it in that it encourages people to see each other as body parts and as instruments of gratification. It does not, on the whole, encourage people - either the participants or the consumers - to see the others involved as full human beings. It may be argued that many other activities promote a similarly truncated view of other people, and I certainly concede that point, but pornography may be especially powerful in its capacity to dehumanize others.

Therefore, the issue may not be whether or not pornography is degrading but, rather, whether or not this degradation is acceptable. Here, I think, is where Ms. Grey has a point. Obviously, many people don't mind being degraded and others do not mind degrading them. If this is going on between consenting adults, then our society is geared towards accepting this. The whole S and M culture is built on this idea.

If Ms. Grey is content in her life and choices and if she is not hurting other people, then more power to her. Certainly, her profession is far less damaging to society than the average Wall St. banker. I do suspect that she is being a bit disingenuous however - as an active porn star, I am sure she has worked with many people whom she would recognize as damaged human beings. In such cases, the question of degradation should provoke a more considered response.

Sincerely,

Shaun

Dear Editor,

I may be wrong, but I believe in Canada, lawyers wear robes to court, but no wigs.

Sincerely,

Shaun

Dear Alex,

I'm puzzled by your post and also the links. The links you've attached don't seem to connect - at least not directly - to the photos you are indicating in the text. Also, I wonder if Mr. Horton does not have a point - the photos being discussed may well be different from what you're showing here. If the Iranian site has pictures of people being sodomized and raped, that does not seem to be part of the Salon record.

Thanks,

Shaun

Dear Editor,

Um - OK - we already all know that David Horowitz is an apologist for Israel (big yawn) and a racist. So, what was the point of this commentary?

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Editor,

If I remember correctly, Gaffney is a Likudnik and another of an endless stream of apologists for everything that Israel does. As such, I think that he should be taken seriously as he may be the first wave in the pro-Israel lobby's pushback against Obama's efforts to alter Middle East policy, particularly in advance of Netanyahu's response to Obama later this week.

Interestingly, the article referenced by Salon in this morning's Ha'aretz says that the Likudniks in Israel "blame" Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod for the attempted shift in US policy and the idea that (gasp!) the US may actually want a "confrontation" with Israel! Imagine that - Obama wants a confrontation just because he is demanding that Israel live up to its agreements and do what the entire world and most American administrations have asked it to do for the past few decades. The irony here is that I'm sure the Obama people think that they are saving Israel from itself - they don't want it becoming an outright, undeniable apartheid state, which is certainly the direction that it is heading.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Glenn,

HI! I was going to write on the apparent discrepancies between the Israeli polls, but Mr. Snoid beat me to it. Basically, I agree with his point, though my emphasis may be a bit different.

I think that most Israelis recognize that a nuclear-armed Iran would never attack Israel. But they also want to maintain Israel's nuclear monopoly in the region and, with it, Israel's ability to act against its neighbours and challengers with impunity. A nuclear Iran would be impossible to attack and would also be insulated, to a degree, in its efforts to assert greater influence in the region. So, while most Israelis are not afraid of Iran, they would like to maintain the advantages they already enjoy.

Sincerely,

Shaun

Dear Editor,

I'm very much in favour of choice on the issue of abortion and I am appalled that so many Asian cultures overvalue males and undervalue females. (For the record, I am a male of Asian background but, thankfully, I was not raised with traditional values).

That being said, I think we must accept that choice is choice - if some women in Indian, Chinese or Korean communities (for example) feel that having a girl is socially undesirable for them - well, how is that different from deciding to abort for economic reasons or simply because you decide that you are not ready for a child at this time? I'm afraid that once you make the "choice" argument, then the morality and reasoning behind why a particular woman makes a particular choice is no longer anyone's business except the person involved.

If that is not the case - if there actually are acceptable and unacceptable reasons for having an abortion - then Pandora's Box opens.

In places like India, making sex selection illegal actually makes a great deal of sense - the long-term costs to the society of practicing this kind of thing are obvious. In North America, such an argument both can't be made and has little political or cultural traction.

Sincerely,

Shaun