Several letter writers have eloquently touched on supposed Neocon shortcomings vis a vis the Iraq Debacle. Those stategic thinkers misread the current Mideast political situation or the size of our army or the competance of those who would attempt to carry out their desires.

What I would like everyone who reads this letter to understand is that: 'The Neocons did not care about any of that stuff above'.

All the Neocons cared about was inproving the 'security climate' for Israel. That's it. Period. For as bad as the Iraq situation has been for the U.S. (and the poor Iraqis), the security situation for Israel has (at least for the short term) improved. No more Saddam paying families of Palestinian suicide bombers. No more Iraqi military. 120,000 American troops stationed in Iraq. No one to stop Israel if they unilaterally decide to expel the Palestinians from the West Bank, etc. etc.

Our boys and girls have died to make Israel safer. Before this war, Israel was pretty safe already (IMO), and now they are even safer! Small solace, some might think.

Messers. Wolfowitz, Perle, Frum, Kristol, Krauthammer, Rumsfeld, Libby and the rest would, no doubt, disagree. For they are all honorable men...

Riffing a bit on the below 'anonymous' poster's post; I don't know about Mr. David's more recent work 'Curb Your Enthusiasm', but when I wanted to play a drinking game where I had no chance of getting drunk it was 'Chug-a-Beer-when-You-See-a-Black-Person-on-Seinfeld'.

Sounds like some kind of psycological hangup, doesn't it? It's not, though. 'Sexual Dimorphism' is the term for any creature where the average size of one sex or the other differs considerably from the size of the other sex.

Excellent examples with mammals would be American Bison (males much lerger than females), Spotted Hyenas (females much lerger than males), Gorillas (males much lerger than females), etc. etc. Some species, however, have no sexual dimorphism (although one sex can be generally larger than the other), horses being a good example, elephants (particularily Asian ones) being another, and domestic felines being a third.

Humans are sexually dimorphic. The average male is significantly stronger than the average female. More muscle mass, much wider shoulders, etc. etc. In any sport where strength & speed are significant factors in the performance of said sport (like, say, gymnastics or volleyball), the male will generally dominate. That is why it is patently unfair to let an able-bodied male athlete compete head-to-head with a female. An average male athlete will generally out-perform a gifted female athlete (not her fault, he is just a beneficiary of sexual dimorphism).

So, I guess y'all see where I come down in this debate. To me, the only fair recourse for the male gymnast would have been to be able to perform his routines with the girls, but not receive any competative scores & not be allowed to win any competition over a female competitor. As previous posters have mentioned, none of the female's gymnastic disciplines match the male disciplines (except for floor exercise, and in that women get music & men have none).

Stupid advice from Gttim: 'If they would let them fight, like in hockey, I might actually watch a game or two. I think if the refs let them fight, those guys would be a lot more civil to each other. Guys would think twice about hard fouls as well, since they know they are going to pay for it. And not in fines, but in lost teeth and possible career ending injuries. Lets see how tough the guys are going to be if they know the refs are not going to stop anything that gets started.'

Maybe you don't know this, but your average NBA player is a tad larger than yout average hockey goon. Not wearing any pads, either. The rules against fighting in the NBA are there to protect the participants, referees, and bystanders from the mayhem which can ensue when two huge men start wailing on each other. If you don't believe me, ask Mr. Tomjanavich or the player for Ohio State who was almost beat to death in an infamous brawl against Minnisota back in the early 70s.

Yup, having a spelling error in a post surely delegitimizes any point the poster was trying to make. How could I have been so foolish! Thank's for sticking up for the big, tough, padded 5'11" schlubs (did you know, they have sticks too). I'm sure Ron Artest, Latrell Sprewell or Shaq or any of the other 200 or so giants in the NBA are scared to death by the mighty hockey player (once shorn of all his protective equipment, that is).

Before I tear into your latest whine, I would like to sincerely apologize for spelling the word 'your' as 'yout' in my original post. Those one syllable words have always gor (got, dammit) me.

I also failed to use the handy Sarcasmatron 3.1 software to deduce you were being coy in your original screed. My bad. That being said, I think your point on NBA players never doing any damage is basically idiotic. First, there aren't that many fights to begin with (thank God) and secondly when they do connect, it is to another huge person & not some 'hockey sized' shrimp. As a couple of other posters have mentioned, there have been some pretty nasty blows thrown over the years not involving Kermit Washington (I'll throw in another one, the Robert Parrish beatdown of Bill Laimbeer back in the playoffs one year).

I can assure you that from now on, whenever I read one of your posts (and judging from the number you have, it won't be long), I'll strenuously parse it for your trademark 'write one thing while evidently meaning the opposite if someone calls you on it'.