Unfortunately, as Peter Beinart pointed out in a column today, the only thing the Democrats seem to be good at in offering an alternative to the Republicans, is pandering. I was deeply depressed yesterday to see even Howard Dean, on CNN, one person I thought had a little backbone, pandering to the Israeli lobby, and denouncing Maliki for not endorsing the Israeli war crimes. Oh, I'll vote Democrat come November, because we can't afford another Alito on the Supreme Court, but Pelosi, H. Clinton and Company offer such an incredibly bad alternative that I certainly can't muster any passion to contribute dollars or effort to the Democrats.

Yes there may be voter anger aimed at Bush, but I don't think one has to be much of a pundit to realize that the anger is at the whole political system, whether one is liberal or conservative. Bush may be the figurehead, so the single person most easily focused on, but with the pathetic Democratic leadership, voter anger could shift within days to whichever Democrat became the figure head.

As one columnist has already pointed out, what our democratic system all too closely resembles right now is the Weimar Republic, setting the country up as all too susceptible to a charismatic demagogue. Bush's saving grace is, in fact, his limited intellect and charisma. Imagine how much more dangerous Bush would have been if he were an effective orator.

Hezbollah is, of course, our enemy. Were American troops to be stationed in Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah, Hezbollah would try to kill Americans, as they did in the past. But the need of some of the letter writers to demonize the enemy is a mistake. Demonizing the enemy almost always leads to misunderstanding them and therefore underestimating them in actual confrontations. Mr. Prothero’s article was enlightening, adding to my understanding of how Hezbollah operates. Other readers’ dislike of the article because it was insufficiently negative in its portrayal of Hezbollah is misguided. Understanding of the world, and the consequent ability to deal with it rationally, is only possible when full discussion is possible. Demonization limits discussion and understanding. The extreme attacks on almost any position that is not sufficiently pro-Israel has been extremely damaging to American foreign policy and ultimately further endangers America.

I hope Salon continues to provide enlightening articles and is not cowed into pro-Israel orthodoxy as so much of the MSM has been by the vicious letter writing campaigns, and more, that almost always ensue any nuanced view on the Middle East. For every one of those who threaten to unsubscribe because Salon is not sufficiently pro-Israel, I am sure that there are several of us that still turn to Salon for information precisely because it is still an open-minded voice on the subject. I know that I gradually abandoned Slate as it slid further and further into the pro-Israel orthodoxy.

Whenever there is an article or discussion thread at all questioning of Israel, there always seems to be a flood of posters with bizarrely Orwellian and Kafkaesque logic defending Israel's most Likudnik positions and flaming any poster who seems to consider the Palestinians to be human beings. It makes me wonder if there is a department of the Mossad monitoring American media, always ready to pounce. Some of the terminology and phrasing can be so similar that one wonders if there aren't agents who maintain ten or fifteen identities and literally work full time monitoring American discussion groups, chat groups, etc.; since mainatining American support is so crucial to Israel that any slide to a balanced stance on the Middle East would be existentially threatening. One wonders too if these agents are paid for with part of the billions in American taxes sent annually to Israel. I've always wondered if some of that money doesn't get funneled back into organizations such as AIPAC to make sure the money keeps flowing. How ironic to be paying to have our own thoughts guided.

I was circumcised. It always bothered me. I was curious to know what it would have been like to be uncircumcised. So when my sons were born, I discussed it with my wife, and she willingly agreed to leave them uncircumcised. I have a traditional American attitude; I have never discussed it with my sons, I have not seen them nude since they were about seven or eight years old, so am basically ignorant about how it affects them. But knowing that they are uncircumcised, the issue does not bother me as much any more.

I do know that when they were newborns, I was glad we did not have one more issue to deal with. Having to change dressings on a healing penis might have been the straw that broke the camel's back. Like many modern Americans my wife and I lived in isolation, hours from any supportive family members. We had major issues learning how to nurse our first son, with the ignorance of the medical profession on the subject truly astounding. I was a zombie the first month of my oldest son's life, rarely sleeping, learning to reinvent everything from scratch.

I am very happy with our decision to not circumcise our sons. It is now our son's choice. But I do not think, like some other posters, that male circumcision is remotely like female circumcision. The way I understand female circumcision is done, the equivalent for a male would be not just removing the foreskin, but removing the glans as well. I would recommend against routine infant circumcision for males from our personal experience, but female circumcision is a completely unrelated debate.