I went back and read the post I assume you referred to by Ondelette. I am familiar with the counterarguments advanced by her and, while she articulated them well, I really saw nothing other than a repudiation of the admittedly utilitarian argument for torture in rare cases that Dershowitz advances and that I propose we at least seriously debate before we take it off the table.

I also generally agree that torture does not work, but I don't think that you can take that generalization and therefore conclude that it never works.

Ondelette also talks about the "inherent evil of torture." Would she recognize the morality of killing in self defense? Then surely if one can kill in self defense, one can take lesser actions (torture) in self defense? If not, why not? It seems that maintain that torture is an absolute wrong is just as hard as maintaining that killing is an absolute wrong. Perhaps more difficult.

It seems to me that the perhaps there are two real problems with the view that in some circumstances that torture can be justified. First, we know that the potential to abuse the permission to torture even in extraordinarily rare cases is so great that we wonder if it is, in a utilitarian sense, better to ban it outright. Second, that the cases in which in which is is justified are, in the real world so rare, that we don't believe that they will ever come about so we don't lay down guidelines for when it is permissible to torture because of the improbability of the event. I would argue that those are precisely the reasons the debate should be had in advance and that we should hash out in detail 1) whether it is ever justified; 2) under what circumstances; and 3) what enormous safeguards must be put in place to prevent abuse.

And to be clear, I know of no events in American history that would justify torture in my mind at this point. But just because none has occurred in 200 some odd years does not mean that one never will occur.

Finally, as for your view of Prof. Dershowitz, I must disagree. He is a great intelligence and even if you disagree with him on any given issue, you ignore him at your peril. He is a very bright man who understands logical argument inside and out, and engaging in and wrestling with his ideas can only strengthen those of his readers (never mind those who are fortunate enough to study with him).

Are you daft, woman?

The guy would be interested, but you're in a relationship. Not all men are horn dogs with no ethics. He either 1) thinks it's unethical for him to make himself available given that you are in a relationship; or 2) doesn't want to subject himself to the all but inevitable misery that comes with being in a triangle for his own selfish reasons apart from the ethics of the situation.

An you keep flinging yourself at the poor fucker who, bless his heart, is trying to do the right thing.

The broader question is whether your persistent and abiding interest in a relationship with this guy is telling you something about your current relationship. That's food for thought for another day, but for now, either fish or cut bait, but quit teasing or tormenting this poor guy. Let him find a woman who deserves a nice guy like him.

As we say here in Texas: "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!" A shame he's coming here rather than taking up residency at Guantanamo.

I feel great sympathy for the letter writer. The U.S. is becoming dominated, as one reader put it, the "Fuck You" mentality. The notions of competence, courtesy, and customer service that used to be common, are now in very short supply. I'm a professional and if I did my job with the lack of competence and concern exhibited by so many, I'd be our of work, not to mention likely disbarred.

And while I try to keep cool (and usually do, more or less) when things are at their worst, I do really worry that by passively accepting the crap that passes for service these days, I am somehow complicit in the dumbing down of our society. Almost everyone tells berates the letter writer and tells him he's out of control, but no one seems to lament that we're constantly treated like cattle, give little or no consideration by the corporations that pick or pocket, and that simple manners and customer service are all but nonexistent in all but the most rarefied transactions.

So what do we do to get our culture back on the right track where customers are treated as valuable assets? What can we do when every company in an entire industry -- airlines at the forefront -- uniformly treat their customers with contempt and disdain? Frankly, I'm not sure that showing a little anger now and again isn't a rational response. Granted, you have to pick your spots and choose an employees who has made an individual choice to make things worse, or not to be civil, but to continue to take things lying down is no option either.

I agree with you that the letter writer in particular isn't being very effective targeting who he vents his frustrations to. In point of fact, in my response, I said "you have to pick your spots and choose an employees who has made an individual choice to make things worse."

My comments were directed more that those who just seemed to suggest that he give in completely and not complain at all. I agree that he needs 1) control his outrage better; and 2) selectively redirect it to those either a) more culpable, or b) in a position to remedy the problem at hand.

Sorry if I didn't make that clear.