Oh, pshaw. This is all a swapping of opinions. I am simply requesting you write your own damn stuff.

You missed my point. I am painfully aware of how far south human nature can go.

But it is important to remember, I think, that one of the ways it gets there is by constantly searching for games of hardball and engaging int hem.

The difference between "what is the worst thing that could happen" and "what is the best path toward improving the situation" is the difference between chronic antagonistic and combative approaches using force, and energetic positive dialogue. Your subscription to Big Stick policies as the PRIMARY line of relationship with the world is unfruitful.

But do not think for a minute that I am unaware of what others can do. I simply think we need to be bloody smart about dealing with real issues, and the people who make them, instead of resorting to annihilation. Every single confrontation we have had, rightly or wrongly, is first a collision of ideas, and only then a collison in arms. What makes the distance between them? One factor is always obstreperous, stubborn, forcefulness. If we had aimed our efforts, for example, at actually dealing with the less-than-100 people who were the actual sources of the 9-11 catastrophe, we would be much richer and probably have been much more effective than we have been.

Getting tough is useless if you do it stupidly; the present Administration is living proof of that lesson.

A