School of Hard Knocks?

Yesterday, when Kofi Annan toured Southern Beirut for the first time since the recent conflict, he was greeted by a chorus of boos. In fact, the world's number one peacekeeper was so well received that he was hustled off the streets by nervous security guards after only 10 minutes of tour time. Kofi must have been surprised that the Muslims in this area had such a hatred for him, and Israel, and the UN, and the United States and....well, a lot of other things too. The question is though, did all this first hand experience with Muslim radicals' wrath turn on that light bulb in his head?

Annan has had, to put it mildly, a less-than-successful tenure as head of the United Nations. Whether it was participating in the Oil-and-food scandal or sitting around and watching (a.k.a 'doing nothing about) genocide in places like Iraq and Sudan, Annan has not exactly increased cooperation and understanding amongst the world's Nations. This, in my opinion, is due in large part to his complete misunderstanding of Islamic radicals - who are the primary folks responsible for some of the most horrific violence in the world today. They run al-Qaeda, they are the dictators screwing up Africa, they inflame conflict with Israel, and essentially perpetrate all 'crimes against humanity' that are committed outside of China and North Korea.

Furthermore, as we have, hopefully, learned, these Muslim radicals aren't exactly reasonable; and thus don't tend to respond well to things such as 'talks' and 'diplomacy.' However, Annan, in his wisdom, refuses to recognize this. He has continued to pursue what he deems 'peaceful' solutions to problems in the Middle East; as well as continuing his attempts to 'reach out' to the radical Islamic community. He went so far as to, in essence, blame the recent War in Lebanon on Israel. And what has all this hard work gotten him? Well, it seems that, at least to supporters of Hezbollah (and other Islamic terrorist groups, I'd bet), he has earned himself a place amongst the supposed 'Worldwide Zionist Conspiracy.' An amazing feat to be sure.

Indeed, Kofi Annan, and the rest of the UN, have played nice with Muslim terrorists and radicals for a long, long time - at the expense of the Nations they're supposed to be helping. Yet, maybe this trip to Beirut will finally teach Kofi a lesson. Could those insults and racist ramblings bring the UN Secretary General to his senses? If they do, it will certainly be a lesson learned the hard way. Then again, this is the United Nations we're talking about - and they always seem to find ways to simply astonish us with their ineptitude.

One For the General

In honor of France's recent showing (or lack thereof) of military prowess in Lebanon, I thought I'd post this classic quote from General George S. Patton Jr:

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me."

And to think, 300 years ago Louis XIV and his French battalions sat atop the pyramid of World Power. Funny how things change......

American Kids Getting Fatter - It's the Government's Fault!

A recent study of American schoolchildren has discovered that, surprise, they're getting fatter. As if we really needed a scientific study to tell us that. Regardless, what is interesting in the article on CNN is the purported cause of this increase in obesity. It seems that over the last few years, regular attendance in Physical Education classes has declined. This is, in part, attributed to President Bush's 'No Child Left Behind' act because its "[focus] is on testing," causing P.E classes to be put on the back burner. Furthermore, the report asserts that the Government, through public schools, should be offering more in the way of Physical Education. There is of course, a real problem with all this reasoning; it doesn't take into account the chief reason American children are obese: their parents.

Think about it. Why are American children fat? Mainly because they eat McDonalds a lot and opt for playing Xbox instead of 'Cowboys and Indians.' In short, American children get fat because of what they do away from school. Besides, what does teaching elementary and middle school children Health accomplish? You can teach a 10 year old anything and everything about how to 'eat right,' but, last time I checked, the average 10-year old doesn't cook their own meal. Nor will they voluntarily ask for vegetables at dinner simply because it's 'good for them.' Indeed, no matter how hard you try, you probably won't convince a child that he or she needs to stop playing video games and go run around outside. In fact, convincing, teaching, instructing, whatever you want to call it, won't work with children; forcing (and perhaps bribing) will. This is, of course, where parents come in, as they are the ones who can force their children into healthier lifestyles.

Mom and Dad can say 'no' when the kid wants McDonalds for dinner. They can also force the kid to eat better by, surprise, making healthier foods to put on the table at suppertime. In fact, they could even take away the Xbox or PlayStation if their child plays it too long! Imagine how much thinner American children would be if their parents actually gave a damn about these sorts of things! In this day and age, I know it's difficult for parents to think of themselves as responsible for raising their own children; but if they just tried they could have such a positive impact.

Indeed, in the era of big government programs it is sometimes difficult to remember that, in the words of Ronald Reagan, "government is not the solution to our problem - government is the problem." In this case the reason government is the problem, is that its education policies offer a convenient scapegoat for youth obesity and allow us to ignore the real reason American kids are fat: their parents aren't doing their job.

No Reason to Get Excited About Cease-Fire

So, after days of deliberation, the UN has finally shaken its fist and demanded an end to hostilities in the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. However, anyone with a cautious and sensible mind should not be so quick to hail this cease-fire agreement as a success. While the main points behind it all sound great on paper, they could, in practice, prove disastrous.

First, the peace agreement calls for an end to hostilities. I can just hear everyone over the age of 50 in Israel shaking their heads. Since when have hostile Islamic terrorist groups not attacked Israel? Since 1948, when exactly has Israel had peace? The answer is, quite honestly, never. Israelis, perhaps more so than any other peoples, live in a constant state of war. They don't have a "homeland security alert level" system; because, if they did, it would always be on the highest level. So while the rest of the world may feel like 'hostilities have stopped' I can assure the Israelis have no such illusions.

The second point of Secretary Rice's cease-fire plan is the disarmament of Hezbollah. Of course, this should be easy, especially considering that many Lebanese people support Hezbollah and that the Lebanese government can't even control them. . . . oh, wait, I guess that could complicate the process. Furthermore, Hezbollah is being financed by Iran and Syria, and since the UN, and the United States for that matter, have done very little in the way of dealing with those two countries, it's very difficult to believe that we can stop them from arming Hezbollah, again. Now, if the Lebanese Government can't disarm them, and we can stop their suppliers from giving them more stuff, how exactly are we supposed to achieve this "disarming of Hezbollah?"

The final point in the UN's peace plan is the sending in of an 'international' peace-keeping force, which could perhaps be the least successful of all 3 points. The UN, and its peacekeeping forces, especially the ones that aren't made up entirely of American troops, have one of the most miserable track records in history when it comes to actually maintaining peace. The UN does more to exacerbate conflicts than stop them. I mean, c'mon, there was a UN peacekeeping force, in Southern Lebanon when this conflict began; and they sure did a hell of a job keeping the peace. What is to make us believe that one of the UN's 'international forces' is actually going to keep the peace this time, after failing every other time?

The bottom line is this, for the past 10 years or so, the UN has actually done more to support Hezbollah than disarm them; and the Lebanese government has admitted that they have no real leverage with the organization. In fact, it seems the only one who can put an end to Hezbollah is Israel - but they're now being forced to halt this task by the cease-fire agreement. I hope I'm wrong, but somehow, I don't see the current Security Council resolution changing anything. Indeed, I'm skeptical that this will lead to a true 'cessation' of hostilities at all. So don't be surprised if in the coming year the Israel/Hezbollah conflict starts up again - and when it does, thank the cease-fire.

The Problem With the Bill of Rights - Too Much Brains!

It seems that no matter what TV station you watch, what newspaper you read, or which blog you visit, you constantly come in to contact with debates over the meaning of the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution. Heck, the other day I heard a free speech discussion on ESPN, of all places. Yet, when the 1^st Congress passed the Bill of Rights way back in the early days of the USA, it wasn’t exactly controversial. In fact, most people were wondering why amendments 1-10 hadn’t been in the Constitution in the first place.

Fast forward 225 years or so, and it seems everyone has their own opinion as to what the Bill of Rights means and what each amendment is ‘intended’ to accomplish. So, why all the controversy? It recently dawned on me that the answer is quite simple. James Madison was just too smart. That’s right, James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights in a style that was educated and verbose – a style that the vast majority of modern Americans are simply too stupid to understand.

For example, in the 1^st Amendment, when Madison states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" it was pretty well understood, in his day, that this merely meant 'no National Church' (i.e. The Church of England). The word established, aside from its normal meaning, also means "to make a state institution of." In light of this definition, and if you realize that the word "respecting" could also be used as "relating to" and that "Congress" is used in place of "the National Government," the idea that "the National Government can't pass a law relating to the creation of a state institution of religion" is pretty clear. Most of you probably didn't even need me to give you all those synonyms. Still, imagine if James Madison had written the amendment in "stupid man's" terms. Then everyone could understand it without the need of complicated synonyms. It'd merely read: "the National Government ain't allowed to create a national church." Badda-Bing! How crystal clear that would be! But, alas, James Madison is *gasp* intelligent; and the 1st amendment requires just a tad bit of intellect to understand.

The same applies to the 2nd Amendment - imagine if it just said: "every freakin' person can own a freakin' gun." How easy would that be! But, again, Madison goes all brainy on us and says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Gosh, see how much more space Madison's version takes up than my stupid man's version? It's a whole 70 letters longer! Why, there aren't even that many letters in the English alphabet!

Furthermore, it's too bad Justice Anthony Kennedy didn't have a stupid man's version of the 5th Amendment lying around when he was making his decision in Kelo vs. City of New London. To think, a bunch of people in Connecticut have now lost their homes to the government, all because James Madison had to play "smart" when he wrote the Bill of Rights! And imagine how much better off the country would be if, instead of "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people," James Madison had just put; "Congress, keep your friggin' hands OFF whatever powers aren't directly listed as yours in the other parts of the Constitution," for the 10th Amendment.

Sadly, James Madison is perhaps THE most intelligent citizen in the history of the United States - a trait which manifests in his writing. He writes eloquently with 'big words' and 'complex phrases,' that many current American citizens can't understand. Seriously, some Americans whose beliefs are in-line with Madison's probably don't even realize it.Nevertheless, we can still hope that in the future all Americans become intelligent enough to understand Madison's genius. However, I, for one, am not optimistic.