Jonathan Last was right on the money about Israel's approach to airport security ("Behavior reveals all," Aug. 27). If we truly want to make a difference in airline safety, the United States will have to start paying more attention to people and less attention to objects.

The problem here is that this would require highly trained, skilled personnel who are equipped to attend to the subtleties of human behavior. This would require funding for personnel screening, training and ongoing supervision.

Currently, airport security workers do not come remotely close to being able to carry out the kind of security process Last described. Israel does not rely on rhetoric and slogans to battle terrorism. They have made it a priority, and they do it intelligently. Until the feds and the airlines decide to take the same approach, we will continue to be at risk.

Responding to those who have expressed concern about the effects of her Carnal Knowledge column on children, Faye Flam was evidently perplexed about how such "popularized science writing" could be problematic or make people uncomfortable ("Hazardous for kids?" Aug. 27).

Perhaps the discontent is the result of a growing predilection of the newspaper to downplay the spiritual aspect of our humanity in favor of a purely physical, scientific view.

The column treats sex as a mechanistic, exclusively physical activity. Certainly the corporeal characteristic of sex cannot be ignored and may even be primary in most instances. One may also argue it is not the column's purpose to discuss the spiritual realm, and it is up to parents and religious institutions to teach children the sacred aspects of life.

Regardless, sexuality in its best form includes sacred principles such as commitment and love. The amount of criticism received perhaps indicates that many readers would appreciate a more encompassing treatment of sex in particular and a greater recognition of the spiritual dimension of our lives in general.

For anyone in this administration to talk of "moral and intellectual confusion" and the Iraq war in the same breath is disgusting. Who created the confusion and promoted it for political gain? Who linked 9/11 and Saddam Hussein? Who hyped the threat of WMD? Who based this war on lies and then said if we don't fight "them" over there, then "they" will attack us again over here? And who now slaps the stamp of "fighting terrorism" on every move the administration makes?

I was astonished when the Aug. 27 article "What it now means to tour New Orleans" ended on such a sour note. ("I had come home depressed.") The area needs people to visit, to eat, to spend money, to rejoice in the spirit of humanity and recovery. This article may have influenced travelers to visit someplace other than New Orleans.

I agree that it is important to tell people that the city is not the same; it can never be the same. However, the point of vacation and travel are to escape the routines of everyday life. Although devastated, New Orleans, its people and places each have a charm all of their own and a spirit that continues to grow in light of the destruction of Katrina.

I found Trudy Rubin's Aug. 27 piece " 'Islamo-fascism': A blurring label" on the use of labels in defining our enemy both interesting and disturbing. The piece ends with this: "The term 'Islamo-fascism' has political wings and plays to the president's mantra of good vs. evil. But it obscures the complex nature of the struggle Americans will face over the next decade. It misleads more than it informs."

Oh, really? Like it really makes a difference what we call these terrorists? Why spend time trying to defend what we might define as evil? Who cares? Most of us only care that our troops are able to hunt them down.

In addition, I wonder why Rubin never writes about the labels used by the left in its attacks on the president, such as "fascist," "murderer" and others. I was in New York recently during one of the alleged antiwar rallies. I saw Nazi symbols, swastikas and pictures of Bush represented as Hitler.

This is cache, read story here