The United States plays, for the most part, a constructive global role, and to the extent that that role shrinks, other countries, even those most critical of what America does abroad, will suffer.

The war on terror, I believe, will be waged by effective intelligence and police work and cruise missiles.

The amount of military force necessary to provide reassurance depends on how dangerous people think the world is. And that I think ultimately depends upon the kinds of government that hold sway in major countries.

Certainly, protecting oppressed people, stopping ethnic conflict and promoting responsible governance are worthy goals. But none is as important for American security and prosperity as keeping the peace in the Middle East, Europe and East Asia.

Patience, they say, is a virtue. Yet in times of emergency, the government needs to be able to make snap decisions and take bold, decisive action to protect the American people.

Originally in the United States, there were no laws regulating behavioral advertising. As a result, like in the Philippines, government has relied on industry self-regulation.

Governance is complex, difficult, and on the whole, thankless - why ever should the Bright Young Things leave the management of their hotels, newspapers, banks, TV channels and corporations to join, like fleas on a behemoth, the government? Wherein lies the difference between the two worlds?

I don't know much about politics, but you have to look at it with the bigger picture and think what's best for us now, what's best for us in 10 years' time, what's best for our kids' kids' future - and I don't know.