Well it happened.  The former dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, has been hung.  As you probably already know, he was sentenced to death by hanging for crimes against humanities for authorizing 148 killings in Dujail back in 1982.

Even though Saddam killed many innocent people, I still feel that his execution was unjust.  I don't see how the execution of this man can possibly do anything for the rest of humanity.  I see the fact that he killed many people but what does this do for everyone else?

I am a firm disbeliever in the death penality and I carry this to one of most horrible men in all of history.  I don't believe that anyone including a government should be allowed to "legally execute" another human being.  I think it is wrong in every sense of the way.  I don't care how bad one person was in life, he does not deserve to be killed by another human being.  Everyone is sinners.  In God's eyes, anyone who sins is in the same boat.  Whether you steal one dollar or one thousand dollars, in God's eyes you still stole something that wasn't yours.

Saddam should have not been hung.  Him being locked away in prison where he could not have hurt anyone else for the rest of his natural life would have been just as good of a punishment.  No one deserves to be put to death based on what they did in their life by another human being.

A video posted on YouTube has helped Canadian police find a man they believe responsible for a murder.  Police said that they uploaded a clip from surveillance tape onto the YouTube site.  The video showed suspects arriving at a local nightclub for a concert.  Police said they turned to YouTube due to its popularity with young people.

I guess this raised the question of should police be allowed to do this.  This certain incident occurred in Canada but will this start popping up in the United States?  Will police begin to utilize the popularity of such internet websites to assist in the capturing of known criminals?

My opinion on the matter is this.  I don't have a problem with them using private video tapes from security cameras at nightclubs, gas stations, ATM's, etc.  I say they should broadcast this out to anyway with eyes in order to help catch some potentially dangerous men.  This is already done on the TV show America's Most Wanted.  I don't have a problem with that whatsoever.

Where I start having a problem is when the police start using footage from public cameras that are not designed for this purpose.  One such example are traffic cameras at intersections.  These cameras, I know here in Baton Rouge, LA anyway, are designed to only check for red light runners at intersections.  Supposedly these cameras are only to be seen by the DOTD for the sole purpose to catch the drivers who run red lights.  If they start using this technology as a form of surveillance, they I see this as "big brother" starting to take over with his all seeing eye.

Yesterday on a talk radio program a caller called-in and brought up the topic of how Christmas lights are a complete waste of money, and how they are hurting the environment.  I have to admit to you that I don't disagree with everything he was talking about.

The first point the caller made was that Christmas lights are a complete waste of money when it comes to decorating.  I would have to disagree with that.  Putting up decorations are nice for showing your Christmas spirit.  There is nothing wrong with decorating your house for a holiday as long as you can afford it.  It shows your appreciation toward the holidays.

The second point the caller made was Christmas lights are harming the environment by wasting electricity.  This is something I can agree with.  Christmas lights are definitely wasting electricity.  With each set of lights put up, the electric company is having to produce more electricity to feed the power lines in turn having to burn more oil to produce that electricity.  Two effects come from this.  One is environmental damage, and two is the increased loss of our precious oil supply.

The environmental damage I am talking about is the added pollution in the air by burning these fossil fuels.  Lets face it, if everyone would do their duty and turn lights off when not using them and not use electricity when they don't have to, our environment would be cleaner.  Ultimately, Christmas lights only harm our environment by these means.

Allow me to sum up how I feel about this issue.  I don't have a problem with being in the Christmas spirit and decorating for the occassion.  Although Christmas lights are nice decorations to look at, they do in fact hurt our environment in ways you may not have thought about before.  Would I like to see a ban on all Christmas lights nationwide?  No, of course not.  I would like to think that with the knowledge presented that people would be able to make the right decision and do the right thing when it comes to putting up Christmas lights.

With the Senate now held by the Democrats, United Nations Ambassador John Bolton decided to step down as his temporary appointment expires within the next few weeks.  President Bush gave Bolton the job temporaily in August 2005 while Congress was in a recess.  The White House resubmitted Bolton's nomination last month, but now with Congress held by the Democrats, his chances of getting the confirmation appeared very slim.

Many critics from both parties questioned Bolton's style and whether he could actually be an effective bureucrat who could force reform at the U.N.  He didn't have many accomplishments as U.N. Ambassador to the United States. 

Bolton assembled coalitions addressing North Korea's nuclear activity, Iran's uranium enrichment, and the horrific violence in Darfur.  Everyone knows how these three cases have turned out.  North Korea defied the country with their nuclear test.  We can't seem to get Iran to stop enriching uranium.  The violence in Darfur doesn't look like it will be coming to an end in the near future.

In my opinion, Bolton simply wasn't strong enough to be a good ambassador.  He had the opportunity of being the ambassador of the strongest nation in the U.N. but he didn't use that to his advantage.  He had the power to do something about North Korea, Iran, and Darfur but nothing got accomplished in any of these places.  Let's hope the next ambassador to the U.N. can make some headway for the United States.

Governor Tom Vilsack (D) of Iowa announced yesterday his bid for the White House is 2008.  This made him the first Democrat to formally declare his running for the 2008 presidential election.

Tom Vilsack was born on December 13, 1950.  He is a member of the Roman Catholic Church and prior to becoming a politician, his profession was a lawyer.  His political career started when he was elected mayor of Mount Pleasant, Iowa in 1987.  He was later elected to the Iowa State Senate in 1992 where he served until his governorship began in 1998.

Vilsack's run the White House is considered to be a long shot indeed.  He has just about the experience that President Bush had to become president.  The main thing that is hurting Vilsack's chances is the fact that he is not widely known.  Compared to such president hopefuls such as Senator Hillary Clinton or Senator Barack Obama, Governor Vilsack is basically a nobody.

His main focus and objective if elected would be to rid the United States' dependence on foreign oil.  He intends to fund the research of alternative fuels and make them a viable resource.

If you are interested in knowing where Governor Vilsack stands on the issues, Click here to view his Ontheissues.org page.