The 4.29.12 Issue - NYTimes.com Samuel L. Jackson will always be Samuel L. Jackson, no matter the role, just as Bogart was always Bogart. There's something about him that's mysterious, intelligent and barely restrained. He puts the pepper in the pot. WILLIAM MORGAN, Virginia, posted on nytimes.com As an obstetrician for high-risk pregnancies who has cared for women with substance-abuse problems, I found the story of Amanda Kimbrough all too familiar. On a practical level, criminalizing any aspect of women's behavior during pregnancy has the exact opposite effect of what is intended: it alienates the very women who are most likely to benefit from prenatal care. Instead of protecting fetuses, this practice demonizes their mothers and sends them into hiding. Frequently this results in increased, rather than decreased, drug use. Which leads me to wonder if the purpose of these laws is really to protect fetuses. Willful endangerment of a child - even one who hasn't been born yet - is something that should be taken seriously. It's easy to be sympathetic and sentimental, or even to frame this as a gender issue. But as a physician who has seen the worst that pregnant women can do, I prefer to err on the side of protecting the children. And that's especially true when it comes to dealing with current and former addicts. If you commit errors in judgment that endanger others, you pay the price, even if it means collateral damage with regard to the children. If left free, the danger these offenders pose to their children and others far outstrips any relative merits they might have been able to argue for. RICHARD T. BELL, M.D., PH.D., New York, posted on nytimes.com If Paul Krugman sees a difference between Ben Bernanke's academic writing and his current posture, maybe that's because Bernanke is no longer an academic, free to lob rhetorical missiles toward policy makers, which happens to be precisely what Krugman is doing. On the other hand, Krugman is right to feel frustrated at the pace of economic recovery and question whether there isn't a way for policy makers to do more. Unfortunately for the country, with just six months before the presidential election, political concerns are now paramount among our nation's leaders, which reduces the likelihood of aggressive Fed action. In a way, the Krugman-vs.-Bernanke debate symbolizes one of the great narratives of President Obama's first term: What happens when bold ideas run smack into the responsibility - and political considerations - of actually governing and maintaining public support to continue doing so? SAM GUSTIN, posted on time.com This is really an issue of models. In your model of monetary policy, how many more jobs does the economy produce at 3 percent inflation rather than 2 percent inflation? What about 4 percent inflation? In Bernanke's model, the answer is "not many." Or more precisely, it's "not enough to be worth it." But it would be nice to see this argument conducted in more precise terms. What does Bernanke actually think the Federal Reserve could do if it tried to juice the recovery? What do his critics think the Federal Reserve could do if it tried to juice the recovery? In other words, do Paul Krugman and Ben Bernanke disagree on the number of jobs the Fed could create, or do they disagree on whether creating those jobs would be worth the cost in higher inflation expectations? EZRA KLEIN, posted on washingtonpost.com Thank you, Eliza Griswold, for showing your readers a side of these women that is too often overlooked. They are almost always portrayed as little more than helpless victims. I am humbled by the courage of my Afghan sisters and enraged by the perversions that confine them to such miserable lives. May Allah protect them and forgive us. MR LMP, Washington, posted on nytimes.com