DEFIES PARODY. The Saturday morning radio news included a bit from the West Coast. A "grief counselor" does not like the effect of continued terror alerts and placement of troops to protect landmarks. "It's not natural to live in a sense of constant fear and foreboding," according to Stephanie Demos of the Center for Living with Dying. "I think we're making individuals in this country vulnerable in the sense that we're wearing them down. And there will be very little resources left to call upon if something does happen." Where to begin? The Lord may be your shepherd, and He may make you to lie your naked body down in green pastures and study war no more. But the Lord helps those who help themselves. How many residents of the Bay Area have really thought through the fear and foreboding that their ancestors endured, in order that they might indulge themselves today? Have they contemplated crossing Donner Pass before the Pacific Railroad? Have they ever contemplated a bear in any setting other than on the Californian state flag, or as an object of oppression in zoo or circus? Do they view the redwood forest as anything other than a stroll in the park? Have they considered what a life expectancy of 40-50 years means ... as daily reality, not simply as the avoidable consequences of venereal disease?

Lest readers take my comments as more criticism for the coasts, this morning's radio news reported a woman in St. Charles, Illinois (no poverty pocket there) who objected to the Iraq campaign along these lines: there may be weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but there is no way for Saddam to deliver them here. Madam, what if you are wrong? Is that the kind of stress you wish to live with? What is your assessment of the downside risk? Danger properly prepared for must be respected but not feared. Danger, not prepared for, will be a greater test of your resources than any orange markers or scary newscrawls.