There are many discouraging things about the ongoing debate over Vietnam. One is the bewildering tendency of participants to try to rest their case on concepts and arguments that are themselves in question. An example is the frequent reference to "national interest" and "national security" as though they clinched the debate. On close inspection, such terms are found to mislead and becloud.

In the widely acclaimed book, The Limits of Intervention, Town send H copes rests his conclusions on these same dubious notions, His thesis is that the "limits of intervention" are defined for the United States by its "vital national interest."

Devil theories of history and politics are the offspring of curiosity and frustration. Sensitive participants and observers of the human drama want to know why events have turned out as they have, especially when they end in disaster. Why World War I? Why the "fall" of China? Why are we "hogged down" in Vietnam?

Every modern man pays lip service to the reality of multiple causation, but the very mystery and complexity of untoward events compel some people to search for the central flaw, the fatal error, the demonic force beneath the misfortune. In this quest modern man is not far removed from his primitive cousin.

We have been reading for some time that the Nixon Administration has abandoned its "low profile" approach in favor of harsh rhetoric that divides us into "polarized" camps, with Attorney General Mitchell and Vice-President Agnew singled out as the principal culprits. As this is written, it is too early to tell if the President's, attempt to overcome the reaction to his Cambodian decision is the beginning of a long-term restoration of a "cooler" approach or is merely an interlude between Agnewisms. In any case, the President's original words about the necessity to listen to each other struck a happy note, and it is equally the case that productive exchanges of views seem most difficult to achieve in this society. Why?

Even fifteen, years ago sheep could safely graze in the fields opposite our apartment. But luxury apartments began to be built apace and the land which had cost 50 lire a square metre now sells for as much as 130,000 lire. There is only one patch of green left in the area, yet the proprietor of the whole district can now erect four blocks of apartment buildings on it, having won his case against the Town Council. "They always win their cases against the municipality" is the comment in the district; "they have plenty of money and the municipality is bankrupt."