SADDAM'S EXECUTION

Most likely in the next few days, Saddam Hussein will be executed. If ever there was a case for capitol punishment, this is it. He more than lived up to his nickname, "The Butcher Of Bagdad". Not only was his regime responsible for as many as 400,000 deaths, he probably was personally responsible for hundereds himself. He was such a big fan of torture that for his birthday every year, it is reported that he would visit his state run torture chambers and take the place of the torturer. Clearly, he will not be missed.
However, it is still is a bad decision to execute him. Not because doing so will worsen the violence in Iraq. I don't think that it is possible for the violence to get any worse there. And not because I think that capitol punishment is morally unjustifiable. The reason why executing Saddam Hussein is a bad idea, is because it is a bad political move.
If what we truely want is to bring Democracy and stability to Iraq, we need to change the mentality that has plagued it for decades, if not centuries. In the last hundred years, Iraq has changed leaders numerous times. And everytime, the first step of the new regime was to execute the leaders of the former regime. When Saddam Hussein took over he not only killed all the leaders, but anyone connected to it, including those in his own Ba'ath party who showed any signs of sympathy for the old regime.
So killing Saddam now would only guarantee that Iraq will continue its cylce of violence and push it farther away from Democracy and stability. If they were to sentence him to life imprisonment, they would make a bold statement to the world community, a statement that Iraq is now different from its past, different from the rest of the Arab world and ready for Democracy.

THE WAR ON CHRISTMAS...AND SANITY

Merry Christmas everyone! I happen to be Jewish, but I still like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas, or a Happy Chanukah, or a Great Kwanzaa, or a Festive Festivus. I see no reason why people who don't celebrate Christmas can’t be merry on it, or at least be wished that they be merry, just like I don’t see why gentiles can’t be happy on Chanukah, or white people glad on Kwanzaa.
I really don’t see the point why people get all upset over someone wishing them well for any reason or occasion. Likewise, I don’t see any reason why anyone should get upset over they type of greeting that people offer. Just as it is silly to be mad at someone for wishing a Jewish person or a Muslim, or an atheist a Merry Christmas, it is even sillier for anyone to get upset over people wishing others Happy Holidays or Season Greetings, or whatever they want to wish on others. There are so many great, important, worthwhile issues to wage war on, like poverty, illiteracy, child abuse, etc. that it just a complete and utter waste of time to wage war on Christmas greetings.
I know that Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Dennis Prager and others have seen their ratings plummet as people wise up to their game of fear mongering and race baiting, but surely they can come up with something more intelligent on which to focus their false rage. Actually, after listening to them, maybe not.
Merry Christmas!

BIBLE, KORAN, DIANETICS...WHATEVER

A few members of the right, specifically Sean Hannity and Dennis Prager, are engulfed in false outrage over newly elected Illinois congressman Keith Ellison’s decision to have his swearing in photo-opt with his hand on a copy of the Koran, rather than the Bible.
They claim that this action, by our country’s first Muslim congressman, “undermines American civilization,” and if we allow him to choose “his favorite book” to be sworn in on, then what’s to stop a congressman from being sworn in on a copy of The Book Of Mormans, or Mein Kampf?
I want to address this last point first, because it is so ridiculous. If there existed an elected member of Congress who wished to be sworn in on a copy of Mein Kampf, then this country would have a much bigger problem then his choice of books on which to place his hand for a photo-opt. If a supporter of the Nazi party ever became an elected official in our government, we would be screwed. That would definitely “undermine American civilization.”
It would undermine it because the values preached about in Mein Kompf are in conflict with those that form the basis of American civilization. The Koran, however, does not. The basic values of Islam are very similar to the basic values of America, and if Dennis Prager or Sean Hannity ever read the Koran, they would see that to be true.
However, even that is not the point here, because the United States Constitution, the real basis of our American Civilization, makes no reference to any book that a member of Congress needs to be sworn in on. And more importantly, the very first sentence of the Bill Of Rights says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
So it is pretty clear that not only does the Constitution not require one to place their hand on the BIble when being sworn in, but it expressly states that no one should be denied the right place their hand on any book they choose. There already has been a Congressman who was sworn in with his hand on the Book Of Morman.
To exemplify this point, imagine that an American, Christian soldier, who, after serving a tour of duty in Iraq, decided to live there. And he was elected to the Iraqi Parliament. When he is sworn, should he be allowed to be sworn in on a Bible, instead of the Koran? Even though the Koran is the book that everyone else chooses? Of course he should, just like Keith Ellison should be able to choose the Koran here in America, without any false outrage from Sean Hannity and Dennis Prager.

I'm back, sorry for the long absence, again. As I mentioned earlier, I needed a new kidney, and thanks to my brother, and my whole family, and a team of doctors and nurses, I had a successful kidney transplant on August 25th. It took me awhile to completely recover, but finally, I can now return to annoying people with my opinions on the world today.
A lot has happened since my last post, too much to comment on, so I'll try to hit the ground running and write about the most current issues. Obviously, the biggest topic in the news right now, is Iraq. The Baker report was just released, and Robert Gates was just confirmed as the new Secretary of Defense. Hopefully these two events will mark a new direction in our policy in Iraq, or even better, a change in the situation over there.
One of the biggest issues in the blogesphere these days is the situation in Iraq and what to call it. Many on the fringe right are trying to convince people that it should not be called a civil war. The reason for this is obvious. Right now, our Military is set up to fight an insurgency, not a civil war. If you call what is going on in Iraq a civil war, you must admit that the present course the Bush administration is taking, is wrong, and must be changed. So, the defenders of the Bush administration must make sure that the situation in Iraq is not called a civil war, or else they would be forced to criticize the President.
If you study their arguments, you will see that they fall into two categories. One group that claims that there is absolutely nothing even resembling a civil war in Iraq, (we'll call them the radical Bush fundamentalists), and another group that argues that the situation in Iraq is too complicated to be called a civil war. The first group is easy to debunk. Just look at the facts. The second group is even easier to debunk. If the situation in Iraq is too complicated to be called a civil war, that doesn't mean that it is not in a civil war, but just that the situation has other elements as well. This group is correct in claiming that the situation in Iraq is too complicated to be called just one thing, but one of the many things it can be called is a civil war, along with an insurgency, and a holy war, and sectarian violence...
So by arguing that Iraq is too complicated to be labeled by just one label, not only does this group really admit that Iraq is in a civil war, but they are arguing that the situation is worse than a civil war. And if that is the case, then the Bush administration really needs to change its Iraq policy.
Now all of this really is meaningless, because it really doesn't matter what you call the situation in Iraq...call it an insurgency, call it sectarian violence, call it chopped liver. Whatever you call it doesn't change the facts that are on the ground, that Iraqi citizens are killing each other every day in obscene numbers. Whatever you call that, it means that the Bush policies have failed and need to be changed.