Let's get started with what John D. of Conestoga sent me by e-mail after I wrote somewhat positively about Norman Podhoretz's talk at Franklin & Marshall College.

"You are a fool is all I can say," said John D., who, I take it, feels I've strayed and been snookered by neoconservatives.

"Don't be an idiot," John went on.

Podhoretz is a founder of neoconservatism, and it was clear in his remarks he thinks highly of President Bush's leadership since the Sept. 11 attacks.

John, just as clearly, doesn't.

"Blowing people to dust is indefensible," John says. "The United States is way ahead of the game if one is keeping score."

Don't forget, John notes, "the misery" the United States created in the Middle East by propping up dictatorships.

Well, John, I hear you. The United States is not always a model world citizen. But what's your solution?

Disarmament? Surrender?

Have you given any consideration to maturity, patience and vigilance?

Podhoretz spoke of a policy of national security that encompasses those qualities in the interest of self-defense. I find wisdom in some of his points. After all, there are people who think the only good American is a dead American.

But I part company with Podhoretz over his assessment of Bush.

I think we need a president who wants to promote democracy around the world and would resort to force only when lives are clearly in danger and alternatives have run out.

Call me a fool.

Or call me illogical. Terry M. of Lititz does.

"It is beyond me how you can ... embrace this twisted logic," writes Terry. Her comments, however, were not in response to my musings about neoconservatism.

She took me to task because I wrote approvingly of a point about abortion made by another speaker at F&M.

Ecologist Sandra Steingraber spoke of the increasing evidence that toxic chemicals in the environment are dangerous to human life, including the unborn.

Steingraber, in a digression, offered a defense of reproductive choice and spoke in a compelling way about her own decision to end a pregnancy.

But as divided as society is over abortion, Steingraber said, there should be no disagreement over the need to find substitutes for substances that harm fetal life.

Terry, unfortunately, finds Steingraber's thinking "convoluted" and "irrational."

"It is the height of contradiction by Ms. Steingraber to advocate for a cleaner environment that will protect the unborn from toxic materials," Terry says, "while witnessing about a decision to have an abortion."

Well, I can't speak for Steingraber. But it seems to me she's saying the party guilty of contradiction will, in fact, be the pro-life community -- if it champions the sanctity of life and stays silent on environmental threats to the unborn.

OK, readers, you had a say about war and abortion. Oh, yeah, the convention center, too.

Darlene W. liked my column (yeah, that happens) about businessman Kirk Liddell taking an unfashionable stand in support of the embattled urban redevelopment project.

"I recently moved back to Lancaster with my family" after living 17 years in New York and Washington, D.C., Darlene said. "When I was deciding where to move ... I did as much research as I could on Lancaster. Believe it or not, the convention center/hotel was one of the determining factors in our move to Lancaster. ... I'm so amazed that so many people are against it."

Well, believe it or not, Darlene, there are a lot of people who would be amazed by your opinion. But this is Lancaster.

Welcome home.

Finally, I'll share an e-mail from William R., who commented on my column challenging state Rep. Scott Boyd on his advocacy of a constitutional ban on gay marriage. William thinks Boyd is right in considering gay marriage "a bad thing."

And why would that be? "Because," William writes, "even evolution seems to be in agreement. Two sexes have evolved. There must be a reason."

All I can say, William, is I'm heartened you don't think Darwinism is a bad thing.

E-mail Jeff at jhawkes@lnpnews.com.