If you've been watching the news, you no doubt know that (surprise!) Saddam Hussein's death sentence has been upheld by the Iraqi courts, and he's supposed to go to the gallows sometime in the next 30 days. To his apologists and supporters, it's an example of victors' justice; to the victims of his long reign of terror, it's what he deserves.

Or is it?

How do you make the punishment fit the crime when the crime is so monstrous as to defy comprehension? How many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were tortured or murdered during Mr Hussein's rule? How many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Iraqis and Iranians lost their lives during the 10-year war touched off by Mr Hussein's invasion of Iran? What if Adolf Hitler had been captured before he could commit suicide at the end of World War II...what punishment could begin to fit the enormity of the Holocaust? What if Josef Stalin had had to pay for the tens of millions of Soviet citizens who died in his purges? Or Idi Amin in Uganda? Or Pol Pot in Cambodia? How do you punish unthinkable crimes?

I believe in capital punishment, but sometimes I have to think that the death penalty, however it is carried out, can't begin to provide enough punishment for some crimes. If there's a fate worse than death, what is it?

Stanley Crouch, writing in the New York Daily News this morning, suggested that Mr Hussein was "beyond execution," and that "letting (him) rot in jail is the best penalty." Mr Crouch writes that perhaps the worst punishment for a previously omnipotent leader is lifelong solitary confinement with a bland diet and minimum daily exercise outside of his tiny, bare cell. I think there's a lot to be said for such a punishment. As Mr Crouch writes, "If we smile when thinking of the rabid monster wasting away for the rest of his life, that's about as close as any of us will get to a feeling of satisfied revenge."

Joseph Heywood's excellent 1987 thriller The Berkut explores the theme of revenge against a monstrous criminal, in this case Adolf Hitler. You'll be shocked at the ending. And I remember reading a short story many years ago about the punishment of a particularly vile murderer in a futuristic society. Each year, the man was hung, then rushed to a hospital and revived, his broken neck was repaired, and he was rehabilitated in a prison hospital, until the following year, when he would again be hung and the drama would begin anew.

How should we punish truly evil men for truly monstrous crimes? Is death appropriate? Is it too good for some crimes? What's worse? What is fair to victims and their families?

From a purely philosophical and religious standpoint, I don't know how to answer these questions. But I believe history clearly shows that there are some criminals who are beyond redemption and utterly undeserving of mercy. They deserve a full and fair trial, and they deserve whatever punishment results, if indeed punishment is decreed.

So what do we do with Saddam Hussein? I guess ultimately it's up to the Iraqis, and they have decreed death by hanging. So be it.

But I like Mr Crouch's idea better.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

The big news as I write this is that Gerald Ford, the 38th president of the United States, has died at the age of 93.

Mr Ford will be remembered for several things, not all of them positive. He was the first unelected president, having been appointed Vice President by Richard Nixon after the resignation of Spiro Agnew, and then moving up to the oval office upon Mr Nixon's resignation in 1974. He was mercilessly lampooned by comedians (notably Chevy Chase on Saturday Night Live) for his alleged lack of coordination, although he had been a star athlete in college. He pardoned former President Nixon for any crimes committed in office - an act of political courage at a difficult time. He opened himself to ridicule for his "WIN" program ("Whip Inflation Now," and the accompanying lapel pins). And he was the face of America during the debacle of the frantic evacuation of Saigon at the end of the Vietnam War.

But I will remember him for something larger: a humble man with generosity of spirit and a steady, calming personality that the nation needed following the Nixon resignation, the loss of the war in Vietnam, and the low days of the Cold War. I was a second lieutenant in the Air Force when Mr Ford came to office, and I looked at him as a man I could respect and follow as Commander in Chief...not just because he sat in the Big Chair, but because he was a solid, reassuring presence at the right time.

Things are different now. Instead of the calm and humble persona of Gerald Ford as Vice President and President, we have the cocksure and uncompromising George Bush and the vaguely sinister Dick Cheney. Leadership consists of more than standing on the wreckage of the World Trade Center and vowing revenge...it's setting the example of an America that the world envies and respects. Fears if necessary, but envies and respects.

I think that Gerald Ford would have been a good President today, better perhaps than George Bush. We'll never know.

But I wish we could.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Merry Christmas!

Yes, today is December 25th, Christmas Day, a day of peace and joy for Christians around the world to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. A day for exchanging gifts, visiting family and friends, eating too much, and generally beginning the process of ending one difficult year and beginning a new one on a happy note.

Our family tradition is to exchange gifts on Christmas Eve, and yesterday we enjoyed the company of our daughter Yasmin and son-in-law Vin for the traditional ham and potato salad dinner and the opening of the gifts, the two events separated by a severe trouncing of the men by the ladies at Scrabble (in defense of Vin and I, we did get stuck with the Q, and at one time had four O's out of seven letters in our deck). In spite of the miserable outcome of the Scrabble game, we did have a warm and wonderful family evening.

Which many people, sadly, did not enjoy.

The many thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen (including my oldest son) fighting in Iraq and stationed around the world can't enjoy the safe and happy company of their loved ones, and live in a state of constant danger.

The citizens of Iraq, mired in a savage sectarian conflict, wouldn't be able to enjoy the holiday, even if they celebrated it.

Palestinians and Israelis are too busy hating each other to enjoy the holiday, even if they celebrated it.

Ethiopia and Somalia are now officially at war (you'd think they had enough problems).

As we celebrate the birthday of the man Christians call the Prince of Peace, peace seems to be in short supply.

When the way in which you worship God is more important than the fact that you worship Him at all...when people who worship God in a way other than you do are considered hated infidels, are denied salvation, or are otherwise looked on as less than human, something is very wrong. Wouldn't it be grand if everyone could agree that simply believing in God and living a good and moral life is more important than whether one worships at a church, a temple, a mosque, or a synagogue? Somehow, I think the world would be a much better place if it were so.

Whether you are a Christian (Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran, or whatever), a Muslim (whether Shiite or Sunni), a Jew (Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, or whatever), a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Wiccan, or whatever, I wish you a safe and happy holiday and hope that the spirit of tolerance will inspire you in the new year.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Have a Merry Christmas, a happy Hanukkah, a good Kwanzaa, a great Winter Solstice, or whatever you choose to celebrate. Just be safe, and be good to your neighbor.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

Back on December 17th, I wrote about the question asked by author Lance Morrow in his book Evil: An Investigation - what if no one ever forgets? And then I found this editorial cartoon from a few years ago in my collection.

I don't think I can add anything to it.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

I was born and raised in Pennsylvania, have lived in many places in the USA and Europe, and now live in Virginia, which I have found to be not too bad a place to live...if you like high taxes and horrendous traffic. But there's a reason now to be, if not ashamed, then at least embarassed, to be a Virginian. His name is Virgil Goode, and he's a Republican representative from a Congressional district which, thankfully, is not my own.

Mr Goode has expressed concern about the threat posed by militant Islam, and to the extent that I agree with that concern, I can support him. But Mr Goode has gone far beyond the pale, insulting a fellow elected Representative who happens to be a Muslim and wishes to use the Koran at his swearing-in ceremony, and arguing for severe immigration restrictions on Muslims "...to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America."

Regular readers of this blog know that I am a firm believer in the threat posed by intolerant and militant Islam, but what Mr Goode proposes runs completely counter to the values and beliefs he professes to wish to protect. One of the bedrock freedoms granted to Americans is the freedom to worship according to ones personal beliefs. Most Americans are Christians of one sort or another, but many are Jews, some are Buddhists, some are Wiccans, some are Muslims, and some (like myself) follow no particular religion. America welcomes us all, and has built itself into the world's most powerful nation by harnessing the abilities of people of all races, colors, and religions. Perfectly? No. But I doubt that there is another nation anywhere that is as welcoming of all religions as we are.

Some would argue that Islam, as a staunchly (in some cases, harshly) monotheistic religion that does not recognize the validity of any other system of belief, is antithetical to American traditions of religious tolerance. That's true. But there's a place at the American table even for these. If we close our minds, hearts, and borders to Muslims, we are no better than the Wahabis of Saudi Arabia who were protected in the first Persian Gulf war by an American army that was overwhelmingly Christian and Jewish...but whose members were forbidden by the Saudis from practicing their religion even as they risked their lives to protect their religiously bigoted hosts.

Mr Goode does not represent the belief of most Americans in religious tolerance and mutual respect. If we allow him to carry on unchallenged, we lower ourselves to the level of the violent and intolerant Islamists who threaten our very way of life.

We can - and must - show ourselves to be better.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

In looking at relations between the Christian West and Islam, one of the things that has always puzzled me (and many other observers more learned than I) is the dichotomy of thought that many Muslims appear to have about the nature of their religion. This is exemplified by the Islamic world's response to the remarks by Pope Benedict XVI about Islam's violent nature, which might be simplistically characterized as "Islam is a religion of peace, and I'll kill you if you deny it."

This didn't make sense to me until I read an interview with Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch (http://jihadwatch.org) author of several books on Islam. In an interview available on the Campus Watch website (http://www.campus-watch.org/pf.php?id=2183) Spencer explained it like this:

"This is a strange contradiction from a non-Muslim perspective, but not from that of a Muslim who believes in traditional Islamic legal directives calling for the deaths of unbelievers who are at war with Islam. From the perspective of such a man, Islam is indeed a religion of peace: the peace that will prevail over the world when Sharia is the supreme law of every land. To bring this about, he believes he is commanded by God to wage war – not undifferentiated mayhem, but war for specified purposes, under specific circumstances and for particular ends. When you invoke the Qur'an and other Islamic sources to make that point that elements of the Islamic religion legitimize and promote violence, you are doing so as an infidel. Even if what you say is correct, you are approaching it all as an infidel and are thus insulting Islam. And this insult must be avenged. It isn't that you are inaccurate, it is that you are critical. You are mistaking what they see as justice for undifferentiated violence" (emphasis added).

And there you have it.

Now, I don't agree with everything Mr Spencer says any more than I agree with everything anyone says, but I think he makes a very telling and perceptive point. Islam is a monotheistic, "fundamentalist" religion. It's all or nothing - you believe in the literal word of the Koran or you don't, and since the Koran is the absolute word of God, perfect in every detail as spoken directly to Mohammed, if you don't believe it, you're a Dhimmi, theoretically free to practice your religion, but under restrictions that indicate you accept submission to Islam (Note: freedom to practice any religion other than Islam not available in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and some other Islamic countries).

The West won the Cold War against the political doctrine of Communism, and now we face another Cold War against another totalitiarian system, this one based on religious belief. During the Cold War we could show, and people could understand, that Communism was a morally, socially, politically, and economically bankrupt system. But in the new Cold War, in which religious, not political, beliefs are the driving factor, we face an opponent utterly unable and unwilling to change a deeply held belief or accommodate himself to another view of the world. You are a Muslim, or you aren't. You believe in the literal word of God as expressed in the Koran, or you don't. And if you don't, it's the job of every Muslim to see that you do, by violence, if necessary. But in a Muslim's view of the world, that violence is perfectly legitimate, because it's in the pursuit of the greater good of the triumph of Islam.

It's hard to get one's mind around this idea, but essential if we are to understand what we are facing at the beginning of the 21st century: an opponent that believes we all need to return to the perfect world of the 7th century.

Which is not a place I care to live.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

One of my favorite columnists, and one of the most perceptive observers of that festering snakepit generally called The Middle East, is Thomas Friedman of the New York Times. Mr Friedman has served as the Times' bureau chief in both Beirut and Jerusalem, and his experiences there led to his superb book From Beirut to Jerusalem, which is full of brilliant observations and commentary on Lebanon, Israel, and the Middle East in general.

I still remember one of his simple, yet profound comparisons between Israel and its Arab neighbors: he noted that the symbols of the nations said a great deal about how they thought and viewed the world. The symbol of Israel is the Star of David - all straight lines and angles, reflecting a direct, straight-ahead style of thought and action, reflected even in the design and layout of towns with straight streets and neat, right-angled turns. The symbol of the Arab Muslims, on the other hand, is the crescent moon - a blend of soft curves, reflecting a more indirect, roundabout approach to politics and life and likewise represented in the much more chaotic layout of villages.

Mr Friedman also included in his book a set of rules for journalists covering the Middle East to live by...it was funny and insightful, and I was pleased to see that he has updated and reissued it in an article published yesterday in The New York Times titled "Mideast Rules to Live By." There are 15 rules in his list; here is just a sample:

Rule 3: "If you can't explain something to Middle Easterners with a conspiracy theory, then don't try to explain it at all - they won't believe it."

Rule 7: "The most oft-used expression by moderate Arab pols is: 'We were just about to stand up to the bad guys when you stupid Americans did that stupid thing. Had you stupid Americans not done that stupid thing, we would have stood up, but now it's too late. It's all your fault for being stupid.'"

Rule 12: "The Israelis will always win, and the Palestinians will always make sure they never enjoy it. Everything else is just commentary."

You can read the entire article online at the New York Times website, but only if you have an online account there. It's worth your time in searching out a copy of the paper, though, and reading the article for its humorous, yet profound observations on the reality of the Middle East.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Back on November 22nd, I wrote in this space about the lack of thoughtful, reasoned political debate in this country - a topic which has been addressed by many people smarter and more articulate than I (most notably linguist Deborah Tannen in her book The Argument Culture). Yesterday, writing in The Los Angeles Times, Martin Kaplan advanced the topic very well in an article titled "Does Iraq Need More Debate?"

In this wonderful article, Mr Kaplan asks why people keep insisting that we need a "national debate" about Iraq, and suggests that the reason is "...because the mainstream media are too timid to declare the difference between right and wrong. Imagine if journalism consisted of more than a collage of conflicting talking points. Imagine the difference it would make if more brand-name reporters broke from the bizarre straitjacket of 'balance,' which equates fairness with putting all disputants on equal epistemological footing, no matter how deceitful or moronic they may be ... There's a market for news that weighs counterclaims and assesses truth value. It just hasn't kept up with demand."

I'd love to quote the entire article, but you can read it yourself by clicking this link: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oekaplan19dec19,1,4254441.story?ctrack=1&cset=true. It's a marvelous piece of writing, and worth your time to read and think about.

Let me just quote from the end of the article: "Maybe we don't need a national debate. Maybe what we really need are leaders with more character, followers with more discrimination, deciders who hear as well as listen and media that know the difference between the public interest and what the public is interested in."

Gee, I wish I'd said that.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

For the last two weeks, the news has been full of the gripping story of the search for three climbers stranded on Oregon's Mount Hood in a series of savage snowstorms. The families and friends of the men, one of whom has been found dead, are going through a terrible time, particularly this close to Christmas. Your heart has to go out to them.

But nevertheless, the Grinch in me asks, "Why are we spending tens of thousands of dollars and risking many more lives on the mountain to rescue experienced climbers who should have known better than to try to scale this peak at this time?"

I guess I'm glad that there are brave souls who are willing to risk their lives to rescue persons in distress. Coast Guard search and rescue professionals, members of the Ski Patrol, military and police pararescue specialists, all perform a vital function that we all hope we will never need. But all too often, their services are needed not because people find themselves in deadly danger as a result of accident or natural disaster, but because people need to be saved from the consequences of doing stupid things.

We live in a no-fault society in which all too many people refuse to take responsibility for their actions, and expect to be bailed out of trouble without consequence. The fabled America of the rugged, self-made individualist is long gone, if indeed it ever really existed.

I'm truly sorry for the three climbers in Oregon, and for their families. But I can't help feeling that they should have known better.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

Having spent the last two days castigating the stupidity of our local mass transit authority, it's time to return to a more substantial and important topic - a few more thoughts inspired by the Iranian "Holocaust validity conference."

As I noted in earlier posts on this topic, the apparent arrogance and stupidity of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in hosting such a conference mask a clever attempt to undercut the moral and political justification for the creation of Israel: if the Holocaust never happened, or even if it did and it was a European problem, why penalize the poor, innocent Palestinians by taking their land to compensate the Jewish people for a European crime? This is a question that resonates well with those who don't like the Jews, and with those who like using the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as a useful diversion from the failings of the Arab governments who ignore and abuse their own citizens.

It is also an example of what we might call "evil."

This affair has led me to re-read an interesting 2003 book by Lance Morrow titled Evil: An Investigation which analyzes the subject from many perspectives and with many examples for thought and discussion. One of the most interesting passages in the book begins on page 103 (of my hardcover edition), in which Morrow relates a visit with Holocaust survivor and historian Elie Wiesel to Sarajevo, Bosnia, at the height of the fearsome siege of the city in November of 1992. He documents his meetings with Serbs, Muslims, and Croats, all of whom had what they viewed as perfectly valid reasons for doing the horrible things they did to each other. And most of those reasons revolved around events that happened in the past, often in the far distant past, and they all used some variation of the slogan of those who would preserve the memory of the victims of the Holocaust: "Never Forget."

But Morrow asks an interesting question: "What happens when each tribe - Serbs, Croatians, Muslims, Kosovars, and so on - lives by the principle of Never Forget!? What if no one ever forgets? ... Remembering is indispensable. Evils arise from not remembering (those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it, etc, etc.). But evils, terrible evils, also arise from not forgetting. Obsessive memory mandates revenge."

This is one of the most profound observations I've read in a long time, and it bears some reflection. The Jews will Never Forget the Holocaust. The Serbs will Never Forget the Battle of Kosovo. American Blacks will Never Forget slavery. The Armenians will Never Forget the 1915-1917 genocide at the hands of the Turks. And so it goes.

What if no one ever forgets?

I believe Mr Morrow was right - that much evil grows from obsessive memory, from memory that remembers only the injustice, the us-versus-them, the never give an inch because look what they did to us last time. Does this mean that we need to just put old injuries aside and let byegones be byegones? Of course not. If we forget completely, we fall into Santayana's trap of repeating the evil. But at some point, we have to decide that the time has come for some level of acceptance of the past, if not full forgiveness of the evil. When those who perpetrated the original evil have died and there's no one left to punish except their children and grandchildren. No one benefits when the present is driven by the horrors of the past. It's not hard to imagine the economic and social benefits of a Middle East in which people choose to work together rather than constantly battle each other. The Sunnis and the Shiites could rebuild a stable and prosperous Iraq except for the constant shadow of the Battle of Karbala in 680 CE. American Blacks could improve their economic and social situation with more focus on education and less on a sense of entitlement for wrongs perpetrated more than a century ago.

What if no one ever forgets?

Then, as Morrow writes, "...we all eventually live in the same cemetery, and tell stories about what it was like in the days before our universes of incompatible memory collided and made such fission. What life is that?"

What life, indeed.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo