to the elements within Israeli society that take West Bank land away from its Palestinian inhabitants. I am a better Zionist than Krauthammer et al because I want all U.S. aid, monetary and defensive, to be strictly and permanently contingent upon net reductions in Jewish housing outside of the Green Line. I am better because, while supporting the right of Israel to exist within defensible borders, I honor the thirst for justice of the dispossessed. Israeli military control of territory, even civil control (which I support for the present), can and must be decoupled from residence priveleges. The existence of Israel is a necessity; it's expansion into a "Greater Israel with Biblical borders" is merely "Lebensraum" reinvented. Let's link all U.S. aid to the peaceful ethnic cleansing of the West Bank of Jewish settlers by the Israeli government by means of denial of residency permits. A permanent state of war is not preferable.

To all those true, red-blooded, manly Americans who want to invade, bomb and destroy a land that hates everything America stands for, has cultural values antithetical to our own, and would not be missed by anyone I know, may I suggest that we leave Iran alone and carpet-bomb Mississippi or South Carolina? Offensive? Of course, but EVERY country has millions more innocent people who deserve to live in peace and tuck their children in at night than it does bad guys who deserve to be incinerated alive to somehow preserve my sense of well-being. My disapproval of many politicians from those states is as deep and as sincere as anyone's disapproval of Iranian policies and politicians, and I feel the danger they pose to our commonwealth far outstrips any posed even by a nuclear-armed Iran. Do I get to propose the murder of millions of innocent folks from Dixie to take out someone who frightens me? No, it's obscene, and the same standards ought to apply to Charles Krauthammer, neocons, and all other war-lovers frothing about Iran.

You're both right. You've increased my understanding of the film and of my own reaction to it, so thanks. Your reactions reveal things about yourselves, and I think you're both perceptive and articulate, but I'd choose Firefly as my child's fourth grade teacher and tjwombat as his Engineering professor when he's 23.

Unlike a sizable number of responders, my wife and I actually saw the film last night. Films are not inherently good or bad; they are artifacts and it's our personal reactions to them that can be positive, negative or lacking. Folks, let's not characterize each other by our individual tastes in art; it's just so petty.

Our reaction to "Wild Things" was very positive. We both were touched by the degree of empathy shown by the film's creative team toward an ADHD, angry, out of control child and his life full of cognitive dissonance. Even if I hadn't bought into the Freudian id-ego-superego story structure (which I did), the final shot of Catherine Keener's mom character watching her dirty, wet, perverse, hungry little boy wolfing down chocolate cake with that look of total respect and awe in her eyes would still be worth my ticket price all by itself. She's my hero just for avoiding the Ritalin-drenched, drug-your-kid-into-normalcy kind of parenting.

If anyone reads this, I recommend a compare/contrast exercise pitting "Wild Things" to 1945's "Our Vines Have Tender Grapes" written by Dalton Trumbo. It's vastly different but both films attempt to display how children function; neither work as entertainment for children or for adults who want to control or be children. This film may not be "The 400 Blows" but it is light years beyond "Home Alone" and other vehicles for wish fulfillment.

Ditto to almost all of the 10 letters posted so far. I'd like to bring up the collateral issue of all those legal privileges conferred by marriage: power of attorney, inheritance of property, hospital visitation, filing taxes jointly, survivors' benefits and pensions, medical decisions, family health insurance coverage, and of course guardianship of minors.

These are not religious issues. The standard argument that these privileges are only granted by society to facilitate the raising of children would be more believable if childless couples were denied them until/unless children came along. Try taking these rights away from your D.I.N.K. friends and see where that gets you!

I hope that this restructuring of our cultural symbols, led ironically by progressive churches, can help us see these rights as civil rights justly available to all equitably whether we be married or single.

P.S. I'm married 30 years and father of 3 single adults