>
> i don't recall exactly how nathan put it, but for me the point was that
> it was okay to "just say no...". since that makes for good slogans and
> gets the idea across., for now. however, when actually trying to defend
> your position to people you love, live with, work with, etc., then it's
> a good idea to be able to offer an alternative when you are asked,
> "well, what would you do smarty pants."
>
my guess is people have preconceived notions of what they want to hear, when they ask these questions, but should we (whatever "we" means in this context) be in the business of palliative therapy? i appreciate the point you make, and my question is how did you defend your position prior to 9/11 (i assume it was not a populist one)? if you believe that a short-term meaningful response to 9/11 is possible, then i see the difference between the "no war/no particular response" crowd and your viewpoint as being a fundamental one. otoh, if you do agree that no particular short-term response to 9/11 is meaningful, then does your query equate to asking for new ways to communicate old objectives to the people one interacts with?
--ravi