I am intrigued by Salon's choice to run this story and amazed at the letters in response.

My first reaction was to agree with those who thought he deserved it. So what if he got banged up for a couple of weeks. Then I read the reactions of those who were moved by the "harrowing" ordeal and suggested that incarceration and jail rape were far to terrible a response to an air rage incident. Did I miss something? Why wasn't I moved and angered too?

So I reread the piece, and frankly I have a problem with the whole story. While he admits he is asshole for his actions he has lots of excuses, it was the alcohol, it was the drugs, oh did I mention I have HIV? Then he worries about his meds, will he die? Oh, they arrive next morning. Then it is the intense fears and the worry of violence, which disapates quite quickly when he mentions that now he can catch up on his reading.

Why is he incarcerated so long? It's Christmas and the courts are closed. Crappy yes, but not part of some elaborate plan. Now, five years in Quantamo with no lawyer and a death sentence is something to write about.

I am not sure how to comment on the rape incident. It seems to be sandwiched in between worrying about which book to read next and how did Nicholas and Alexandra must have felt when they were incarcerated. It is no wonder the incident has such little resonance with readers of the article and some could be excused for missing it all together. "Taking their turns" sounds positively Victorian. It certainly had no impact on me. And something like that should.

I have yet to read the book, although it has been eagerly purchased. I have a problem with the review, however.

It concerns the reviewer's notion that Hitchens is like "a vainglorious father running rings around a young son" in his attack on fundamentalism. The implication is that fundamentalism is so over-the-top it barely needs commenting on by someone so erudite as Hitchens. Poor little religious fundamentalists, like children attacked by some verbose Brit who intimidates everyone with his intellect and diction.

Since when has fundamentalism, in all of the major religions, been seen as a small child in need of protection? Isn't the very nature of fundamentalism the thing that needs to be exposed and derided?

Hitchen's main issue, I think, is that the most corrosive political movement in the world is not a religious movement led by people who derive their spirituality from Blake and Weil and muse upon the metaphysical universe, but from fanatical, apocalytic, religious fundamentalists of all stripes who want to fly planes into buildings.

Dear Editor,

It is interesting that the author brings up the question of a two family oligarchy running the White House for 24 years. But if you look at the last fifty five years, with the exception of 1964, the Republican ticket has featured a Nixon, Dole or Bush in every election since 1952. While I am not suggesting any bias in this particular article, I find it odd that the media never seem to worry about republican dynasties, and the generally listless administration of Bush Senior was never raised as an issue for Bush junior to contend with; in fact it was touted as a bonus that the young lad had such an experienced family to call upon on.

Sincerely,

Kevin Hill