Dear Editor,

Without examining all of the articles related to this case, it appears that the original controversy started with comparisons of bondage pornography to torture. This is interesting to me, since other people have also made the link between what happened at Abu Ghraib and the easy access to almost unlimited acts of degradation on the internet and in Western culture.

Of course, what is "degrading" is an open question. There are many people who want to be degraded, and I think that Ms. Berlin is quite correct in asserting that there is a world of difference between consensual and non-consensual abuse. However, that may not matter - the people who were inspired to abuse inmates at AG may well have taken their inspiration from the consensual pornography and other examples of excess to which they were exposed. Of course, sexual abuse has been going on long before the internet, but the idea that the spread and mainstreaming of pornography through the internet has a had desensitizing effect on the culture at large is one that needs further exploration. To me, this kind of assertion makes sense and seems correct.

On the specific question of should Ms. Berlin's visitation rights be affected by her work: my initial reaction is to say "no". I am a bit concerned about how a child whose mother is into this stuff will be affected as he grows older, but that may not be a fair consideration. It does seem true, however, that Ms. Berlin's line of work can run a greater than normal risk of exposing her - and the people around her - to dangerous and unstable human beings. After all, we're talking here about the intersection of sex and violence, something that is enormously appealing to truly violent people who are not concerned about the niceties of "safe words". So, there is a legitimate case to be made that her line of work has a higher probability than normal of endangering her son.

The reporter in this case is clearly deeply unethical and should be fired from whatever publication has hired him. He should also be disciplined for his actions.

Sincerely,

Shaun

Dear Editor,

It's almost flat-out insane for someone to suggest that Obama is NOT governing from the middle - indeed, in many ways, he is governing from the left. It is symptomatic of just how insane American politics are that the far right is considered the middle and the really crazy right is considered - maybe - the right wing. And, of course, the American center is really somewhere on the right, as well - at least, when compared to every other industrialized state.

Obama is a good politician and a good leader, but I think that the limits of what he can do are made plainer every time that someone like Boren speaks up. These are the crazies that the President has to deal with, and the American system affords the President a lot less power than many people seem to realize. Indeed, the idea that Americans would actually be debating public healthcare is crazy, but it is happening and getting a decent healthcare system in the US still looks like a longshot. Again, what does this say about the state of the political system?

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Judy,

I don't really get your vampire comment. Most depictions of vampires I've seen include eyebrows.

Shaun

Dear Editor,

There is something wrong with this column. Isn't the author saying, in part, that Henry Gates' experiences in the Ivy League made him a bit too uppity? That he "forgot" the cardinal rule that you don't piss off the police, a cardinal rule that every black man should know? Isn't the author saying that Gates, basically, forgot that he was black and, as a result, suffered the fate of all black men? There is a kind of schadenfreude here, which makes me wonder a bit about who exactly wrote this article.

There is a great deal of truth in the article too, but it's hard not to see it as, ultimately, coming down to blame the victim. Let's not forget a simple truth: this cop overstepped his bounds. He behaved like a bully. The only thing motivating this cop was anger that a man (be that man black, white, Harvard professor or not) was not being sufficiently deferential to the authority of the police. So, he decided to teach that professor a lesson. He decided to show that uppity Ivy League intellectual who was really the boss. What else could account for a policeman acting this way after he's found out that no crime has been committed and the man he was questioning is actually the owner of the house? So Dr. Gates was shouting at him? Big deal. The cop's job was to defuse the situation, not make it worse. He was an incompetent clod who was throwing his weight around because he could. He should be fired.

The fact that many police act this way is not an excuse. If anything, it's an indication that the police need better training and a better sense of exactly what is appropriate in their dealings with the public. It's a call to do more to stop the thuggishness that seems to infect many police after a few years on the force.

In the end, maybe Dr. Gates did think that he should not have been treated this way because of who he is. But that doesn't change the fact that he should not have been treated this way. The commonsense fear and deference that the author of this article counsels may be realistic, but it also sounds a lot like telling a woman not to dress too provocatively, just in case she attracts rapists. It's putting the blame in the wrong place.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine