Dear Editor:

The worse part of this story is not that finally, his son was circumcized, but that he decided to have it done in the barbaric medical way, rather than the more humane way of a ritual circumcizer authorized by Jewish law, the Mohel. Having been to several of these ritual Jewish circumcision ceremonies myself, I can attest to the fact that when done correctly, the baby barely cries and that the foreskin is removed immediately. It is not left on the penis to rot off during for a quick thousand dollar fee by the urologist.

On the other hand, when one considers that his son will never be considered Jewish, it seems sort of pointless. Moreover, I am amazed at how obsessed American Middle Class people, of ethnic Jewish origin, with little interest in Jewish relgion or even any sort of religious piety, can get so upset about this. His parents were not upset when he married a non-Jew, they certainly are not upset that he doesn't observe other identity-defining Jewish rituals like keeping the Shabbos and observing the dietary laws of Kashrus.

This obsession with mindless, tradition-imitating, religousless Circumcision comes from a story by the biblical commentator Rashi who said that the Jews when they were slaves in Egypt they stopped keeping all of the Jewish relgious commandments except one, Circumcision, and for this they were redeemed. Because of Circumcision alone there was the Exodus. The meaning and implications of this story, even for Jews who have never heard it, is quite clear: Circumcision is the most important Jewish religious ritual and even Jews who are far from any sort of Jewish religious practice often are quite insistant that their sons are circumcized.

For the record, Jewish law has no interest in any possible hygenic benefits of this ritural. The Jewish tradition openly acknowledges that the sexual pleasure for the woman, and by inference for the man, from a natural penis is superior to that of a circumcized one. Rabbi Huna says in the Midrash, Niv'eles min ha-'arel, kasheh li-froosh, she who fornicates with an uncircumcized man, it is hard for her to stop (fornicating). There is the story in the Midrash about Jacob's daughter running away to the camp of Shekhem and how she wouldn't leave him because she liked fornicating with his uncircumcized instrument so much. Finally, the great physician and commentator of Jewish law, Maimonidies, postulates that the purpose of circumcision is to limit the pleasure of sex and therefore, limit the inclination of people to engage in it.

Every non-circumcized man I have ever met considers that skin to be the best, most pleasureful, and most important part of his penis. None of them ever wished that they were circumcized and all of them find the concept quite bizaare.

Sincerely yours,

Arthur C. Hurwitz

Dear Editor:

I wish to congradulate Salon for its well-prepared interview with Dinesh D'Souza, which exposes him for the puedo-scholar that he actually is. Dinesh D'Souza's career is really that of a propagandist which uses only semiotic inferences, not necessarily backed up at all by the real facts and policy issues, to provide rhetorical fodder for the "Bannan Republic" approach to politics and policy which is the stuff of the American Right and is not at all reality-based. The very fact that the fall of the Twin Towers on 09/11 occured while a Republican was president is evidence in itself that the Republicans are not necessarily any more diligent, and possibly less careful on national security issues than Democrats.

The other point that one ought to make when Hollywood and the rest of the mainstream media are accused of wonton decadence is that all of these movies and television shows are commercial products that are purchased in mass by consumers in the U.S. and world market. There is a large market for this sort of commercial culture in the Arab and Muslim world as well. All culture in our country, including that of D'Souza's works, are commercial products. Perhaps D'Souza believes the "invisible hand" of the market should be punished for giving the people what they want.

Sincerely yours,

Arthur C. Hurwitz

Dear Editor:

I object strongly to this article's comment that Bush's problems as a politician and as a policy-maker are at all similar to those of Herbert Hoover during the Great Depression.

Hoover was imprisoned by the intellectual and economic conventions of his time, and because of that, unable or more precisely unable to imagine, reforms in the mold of the "New Deal" of his successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt. On the other hand, Hoover was a great humanitarian and an extemely able administrator, having directed relief efforts during World War 1 which included rescuing stranded American tourists in London, feeding a starving Belgium under German occupation, and then, at the end of the war, directing food-relief efforts for Central Europe and the newly-formed Soviet Union. He is distinguished from the current President Bush by the fact that he was a great humanitarian, always willing to work to alieve the sufferings of his fellow-man, and also because of his great talent and an administrator and as an organizer.

Bush, on the other hand, has no interests other than his own self-aggredisement and a self-absorbed desire to use the presidency to make money for his friends and to settle accounts with his absentee father which have completly failed. The point is that while Hoover was unable to meet the challenge of the Great Depression, he was still a great and able man who left a true legacy. Bush, on the other hand, is a very small and petty-minded nothing.

Sincerely yours,

Arthur C. Hurwitz

From a Hobbesian point-of-view, Saddaam should have been left in power. According to Hobbes, the "sovereign"'s only responsibility to the people under his rule is to keep order and security. In exchange for that, the people should be thankful and not demand anything from the sovereign. In other words, the sovereign owes his people nothing.