A promise for you, Mr. McQuade.

Next time you tell me a Christine Flowers article is too repulsive to read, I will listen to you and not read it.

Of course, I should have made this pledge after her column where she confidently asserted that blacks in this country hadn't been discriminated against in at least a hundred years...

Am I missing something here? What is so "repulsive" about saying that it is not fair to compare our frontline defenders, including cops and soldiers, to the most depraved villains in the world? Do you agree with Rev. Sharpton for example that our cops are "putting the city under seige" because they ass-kicked some career bad guys? Now that is truly repulsive.

In her second paragraph, Flowers argues that because Saddam Hussein's torture chambers were worse than Abu Graib, it's silly to consider the Abu Ghraib abuses "torture" or "war crimes."

It's Flowers who's making the comparison to "the most depraved villains in the world," by saying that if an American doesn't reach that standard, they get a pass.

Maybe the Philadelphia beating wasn't the worst, most depraved example of police brutality ever. But to argue that, therefore, it's not worthy of attention, is just sick.

You must understand that there is a difference between "compare" and "contrast." Ms. Flowers was not comparing the acts of American soldiers and police to depraved villains, but contrasting them. In other words, showing how they are different, if only in degree. She is not arguing that the acts of police should not be noticed but that they should be viewed in context. The recent firings of those police may have been a correct response, but it should not be used as a blanket statement against all police or call all their actions into question.