Even Trial Lawyers Admit - Tort Reform Works!

It seems that in the October issue of the American Bar Association Journal, America's resident legal 'masters' have a bone to pick - with the State of Texas. That's right, it seems that America's most unstoppable industry has finally hit a roadblock; and one with two long steer horns on it at that. Here are some choice quotes I've seen from the ABA Journal's cover story:

- A plaintiff attorney states: "My income has dropped to probably 10 percent of what I made in 2003."
- Another attorney, a former president of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association states: "And it noticeably hit the defense side hardest first. Their practices are drying up."
- On page 33: "The number of medical - malpractice cases filed there in 2005 was down 41 percent from the average number of filings during the six years before 2003." (emphasis added)
- "Texas' net gain of more than 4000 physicians since tort reforms were enacted in 2003..."
- "More significant is the 44 percent increase in physician licensure applications in just the past year..."

Wow! You mean enacting Tort reform will actually help decrease the amount of frivolous lawsuits and aid the healthcare system by increasing the number of available Doctors? No way! Yup folks, that's right, if you simply put the necessary reforms into place, you'll get the positive results. Imagine. Just think, all those patients in Texas now have 4,000 new Doctors to choose from - this means the Docs will have to improve the quality of the services they provide due to the increase in competition for those services. And the patients are the real winners because increased competition means not only better quality but likely cheaper prices too! Ain't Capitalism sumthin'?!?

If you want to find out more about the great success tort and medical liability reform has had in Texas check out the following links:

- An Editorial by Texas Gov. Rick Perry on the success of his proposed reforms.
- An assessment from the Texas Medical Association.
- Rick Perry's webpage on Tort and Liability Reform. (several good links on this page)

So, congrats to Gov. Rick Perry and the Texas Legislature for doing the right thing; and also, kudos to the people of Texas for passing (the damages-capping) Proposition 12 back in 2003.

A Better Man Than Most

May God bless Michael A. Monsoor and his family. Petty Officer 2nd Class Monsoor was buried Thursday - he was only the second Navy SEAL to die in the Iraq War. I mention him because it is not everyday that the United States is blessed with Men who will fall on top of grenades to save the lives of thier fellow soldiers. That is truly heroic. (Story Here)

The English al-Jazeera

In what must be an effort to make it easier for all us infidels to understand how dumb we are the famed al-Jazeera network has now decided to do broadcasts in the English language. So, in case CNN messed up any of the translations, or if you were unsure exactly what their News broadcasts were saying, I've discovered a clip for you on YouTube.

So here it is.

Enjoy! ;-)

Thinking Critically On Iraq

It seems that every day now, more and more people continue to say that "the War in Iraq is going badly." Over and over this gets repeated, not just in media outlets such as CNN but also by normal, everyday people who are opposed to the War. The endless repetition of this phrase has certainly had its intended effect; despite the fact that it really means absolutely nothing. Seriously. So you think the War in Iraq is going badly - compared to what? Other wars? Life under Saddam? Chicken Soup?

You see, when you say that something is 'bad' or 'good' you are referencing some other standard or thing. For example: when you hear a new rap song, you will (assuming you have any intelligence) say that it is 'bad' music. The reason you say this is because comparable to all the other music you've heard, the rap stinks. In other words the song by itself isn't bad or good, it's the comparison with all the other kinds of music you've heard that enables one to make such a judgment. (This explains why people in the 1300's were so enthralled by Gregorian Chant - they had merely never heard anything else, and were thus unaware of how bad it sucked.)

And so that brings us back to Iraq; which, we are told, is going 'badly.' Since the folks saying this generally do so in reference to "the war" let's assume that they mean it's going badly compared to other past wars in American History. Unfortunately, such a statement would not only be inaccurate, but an outright lie. The War in Iraq is the 2nd least expensive war we have ever fought, as a percentage of the GDP, surpassed only by the First Gulf War (which lasted a few months as opposed to 3+ years). The Iraq War has cost the 4th fewest lives of any of the Wars we have fought, surpassed only by the Spanish-American War, the War of 1812, and, again, the short Gulf War I. Indeed, to put this statistic in perspective, if all the American casualties from Iraq were multiplied by 6, that total would still not even be one of the 10 deadliest Battles of the Civil War alone. Every death is terrible, but if you're going to compare it to other Wars, the Iraq casualty numbers are absolutely remarkable. In fact, when placed beside other Wars in American History, almost all aspects of the Iraq War are remarkable by comparison; thus, it hardly seems fair to say that, for a war, Iraq is going 'badly.'

So maybe that's not what anti-war folks mean when they say "the War in Iraq is going badly." Oh, I know - maybe they mean that the state of affairs in Iraq is 'going badly' compared to the state of affairs it had prior to the U.S invasion under Saddam! So let's see, during his time as Iraqi 'president' Saddam Hussein killed an estimated 1 million of his own citizens - in peacetime. That puts Saddam's annual murder average roughly equal to the 3 year total of civilians killed (44,000) since the American invasion. And I'm not even taking into account the number of people killed by Saddam in the Iran-Iraq or Gulf Wars! Simply put, things have gotten much better and much safer in Iraq thanks to the U.S invasion. Even my rudimentary analysis above can prove that - and more detailed analyses make that difference even more drastic. Consequently, I sincerely hope that those opposed to the Iraq War are not arguing that it is 'going badly' in comparison with Saddam's Iraq; because that too would be a lie.

Now, maybe the anti-war crowd feels the "War in Iraq is going badly" because the reality on the ground in Iraq is not as good as the reality on the ground back here in the United States. Finally, a comparison that is true! Yes, Iraq is definitely 'doing badly' comparable to the United States; although, so is the rest of the world. Indeed, compared to the current state of things in the U.S, (be it, infrastructure, economic prosperity, etc.) every Nation in the world could be said to be 'doing badly' except for maybe Great Britain, Japan and Germany. Therefore, while this particular critique of the Iraq War may be valid, it does not particularly mean anything insofar as proving the War to be useless is concerned.

The bottom line is this: most people who flaunt the "War in Iraq is going badly" meme have, honestly, very little idea what they mean by that. Indeed, I'm guessing that if I asked 99% of the Iraq War's opponents "compared to what?" after they had uttered their signature slogan they would have absolutely no response. The other 1% would most likely be intellectually dishonest and try to claim that either (1.) 'The US is killing innocent Iraqi civilians' or (2.) 'The US is not doing a good job fighting the War' - both of which, as I pointed out above, make no logical sense. So next time someone tells you that "the War in Iraq is going badly" be sure and ask them just what exactly they're comparing that to.

The Blame Game

Bill Clinton has come under fire recently for his interview with Chris Wallace this past Sunday on FOX. As the fallout continues, the debate over who to blame for 9/11 has become increasingly heated. It has also become increasingly partisan, as both the Hilary Clinton and Condi Rice have exchanged comments over the matter. However, what strikes me the most about this matter is the assumption that 9/11 was either the fault of Bill Clinton or George W. Bush - which is completely ridiculous. The reasons 9/11 happened are pretty obvious to anyone with a bit of common sense; and who to blame is perhaps the most obvious thing of all.

Indeed, believe it or not, the terrorists who hijacked the planes on September 11th are, in fact, the ones responsible for the terrorist attacks! So, let's review. Did Bill Clinton hijack a plane? No. Did George W. Bush hijack a plane? No. Okay, so it's nice to have cleared that matter up. Neither Bush nor Clinton is directly responsible for 9/11. Al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorists are.

Now, for something that's a little bit tougher to grasp but still fairly commonsensical: what led to 9/11? The honest answer is that we as a country caused 9/11. Think about it. Sure, prior to 9/11 we might have known there were terrorists in the world, but we didn't take them seriously. We didn't think they could really attack us here, in the United States. We had successfully won the Cold War, and perhaps consequently had begun to believe in the Wilsonian ideal that we really could create world peace. I mean, sure we saw terrorists killing civilians in Israel and other places around the world, but those were on News reports, and oh-so far away. Thus, in a way, 9/11 was a wake up call to Americans that evil people could still exist in the post Soviet era.

Another way we caused 9/11 was by not responding to terrorism prior to September 11th. Islamic fascists attacked the United States in '79 in Tehran, in '83 in Beirut, in '91 in Kuwait, in '93 at the failed World Trade Center Bombings, in '98 in Kenya and Tanzania, in '00 on the U.S.S Cole, and many other times; and, excepting Kuwait in 1991, the United States' response was to do absolutely nothing. We hear the phrase 'emboldening our enemies' get tossed around a lot these days, and you want to know what did that more than anything else? Not responding when they directly challenged us. This is why bin Laden called America the "paper tiger" back in 1998, and this is also one of the reasons why it was important to invade Iraq in 2003. For too long, Islamic Radicals have been led to believe that they can 'cross' the United States without having to worry about facing repercussions. That is what caused 9/11. We continually reinforced the wrong lesson. We allowed them to believe that they really could attack and beat the United States.

So, let's move past the bickering over which of 2 Presidents holds more of the 'blame' for 9/11. It's time to realize that the United States' "paper tiger" persona is more of a grave threat to National Security than Chris Wallace's supposed "Conservative hit job" on President Clinton. Moreover, the only way to solve that serious problem is by kicking some Islamic terrorist ass in the Middle East.

A Plan For Iraq

Just a few days ago, the Speaker of the Iraqi Parliament said that "the plan to partition the country into three autonomous regions [was] politically dead;" adding another twist to the complex question of what the final Iraqi Parliament will look like. However, that got me thinking, what would be a reasonable plan for Iraq to adopt? While pondering that question, I was reminded of our own Constitutional Convention and the raging battles between the representatives of the 'small' States and the 'large' States. Consider this: at the Constitutional Convention, those from heavily populated States, such as Virginia, wanted to elect National Representatives on the basis of population (as seen in the House of Representatives); an idea that would have given them much more influence. On the other hand, the less populous States, such as New Jersey, wanted a Legislature were each State had an equal amount of representation - thus giving them, proportionally, more power. In the end, a bicameral legislature, with one house based on equality and the other on representation, was adopted. With that in mind, I was able to come up with potential solutions for Iraq.

In Iraq, the legislative argument is between 3 main groups, the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds. Now, while this conflict, on the surface, appears to be more religious and ethnic in its nature, at its root lies the same problem that confronted the Founding Fathers. The Sunnis, who have the smallest population of the 3 groups, are like the small States, they're afraid the larger groups will be able to lord over them in a Parliament based on direct representation. Same goes for the Kurds; as the ethnic minority in the region they fear the same sort of 'tyranny by the majority' as the Sunnis do. The Shiites, on the other hand, would find it unfair to award the Sunnis and Kurds equal representation. They will clearly prefer direct representation, because it would give them the most power in such a Parliament. Therefore, as you can see, the Iraqi problem really is quite similar to the one faced by our Founding Fathers. Naturally, this means the solutions to the two could be very similar too.

So how do we go about creating a similar solution for Iraq? Well, for starters, we create a bicameral Legislature, just like we did in the United States. One branch of this Legislature, akin to our House of Representatives, will consist simply of directly elected men and women. Every X number of people will get a Representative, and religious affiliation or ethnicity will have no effect on this body. The new twist to the Iraqi Parliament can be found in the equality-based body, which, logically, will have similarities to our Senate. In this Iraqi 'Senate' however, you will need equal representation for only the 3 groups, instead of each State. In other words, in the 'Senate,' the Kurds get to elect 10 members, the Sunnis get to elect 10 members, and the Shiites get to elect 10 members. (10, of course, being an arbitrary number used only for the purpose of example.)

Nonetheless, the fact that only 3 groups would be in the Iraqi 'Senate' produces a serious problem, one not faced by our Founders, who had 13 'groups' involved. Obviously, if a simple majority is required to pass a law, 2 groups can easily team up against the other and face no legal opposition. Two possible solutions to this problem are: a) to give each group a veto or, b) require a minimum of 21 votes for certain laws to pass. (Such as laws concerning the exportation of oil.) Indeed, the more I think about it, this problem seems to be the biggest potential flaw in my scheme.

Another potential problem with this system is the fact that Iraq, unlike the United States, has a Parliamentary government; which means that the Chief Executive (the Prime Minister) has to be elected by the Legislature, as opposed to by the Electoral College. To us, it seems obvious that the PM should be elected by the 'lower,' representative body; but I doubt the Sunnis would accept such as system. Thus, selection of the Prime Minister might have to go like this:

The Representative body votes for the PM and the votes are tallied. Then each delegation in the 'Senate' is allowed to cast its vote for PM, and its votes are added onto the totals from the Representative body. However, the value of the Kurd, Shiite, and Sunni votes in the 'Senate' count as (X/4) number of votes - with X being the total number of representatives in the 'Lower' body of the Parliament. In other words the 'Senate' gets to participate in the Prime Minister's election in an effort to make the system more Federal in its nature. While the 'Senate's' total number of votes is fewer, their votes carry more individual weight. It sounds a bit confusing, I know. Yet, here may be an opportunity for our British and Australian Allies to step in, as they have more experience in selecting Prime Ministers than we Americans do.

Would the above work? Probably not exactly the way I thought of it; however, it seems that some slight variation on this formula may be the answer for Iraq. Furthermore, it seems clear to me that studying our own Constitutional Convention will prove a useful tool for the founding fathers of Iraq. Finally, as we witness the process of Parliamentary construction in Iraq, let us remember James Madison's observation that "there are objections against every mode [of government] that has been, or perhaps can be proposed." He would know.

Reading Material

I don't usually post links to other blogs, speeches, etc. mainly because this is my blog; and I feel, as a result, that I'd rather stick to my material. However, this once I feel the need to break that format and link to a speech that I found and read last week. It was given on August 14 in Australia by Canadian columnist Mark Steyn. It's one of the best speeches I've heard/read in a while....

Link Here. Scroll down to where it says 'Mark Steyn:' in bold. That's the section I'm referring to.

Be forewarned, the speech is fairly long, and may take several minutes to read through - but it's well worth the read.

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.

Why Israel Is Right

If you watch the news at all these days, you probably hear an awful lot about Lebanese civilians dying. You also probably hear a lot of the anti-Semitic drudge that comes out of the UN. Perhaps you were beginning to be swayed by the media's stories and beginning to wonder why the Israeli Air Force keeps "targeting civilians." Fortunately for you, one Australian report has you covered. He's on the ground and has answers to those questions.

Check out this article

You see, Israel targets civilian areas because those are the areas that Hezbollah uses to launch their rockets. Note when the reporter points out that "until the Hezbollah fighters arrived, [the area] had not been touched by the Israelis. [After Hezbollah used it,] it was totally devastated." In other words, Israel avoids targeting civilians, that is, until Hezbollah fighters drive into civilian areas and try to use the locals as human shields. Then, unfortunately, civilians become caught up in the battle; and they have no one to blame but Hezbollah.

It's scary stuff for sure, and a true insight into the "holy" nature of Islamic terrorism. Not many other groups can claim that they ooze anti-Semitism and cause hundreds of innocent civilians to die because they want to use them as shields and exploit their deaths politically. Needless to say, don't by the anti-Israeli message for a second.

Abdicating, Abusing, and Adding

Back in 1787 when the Founding Fathers laid out our government in the Constitution, they intended to create a government that was limited in its power and scope. Furthermore, they hoped that the Legislature could work in the interest of the people and in regulation to the Executive. However, considering the vast array of power held within the current Congress, and in light of its intended powers as put forth in Article I, Section 8, it seems that the aims of our Founders have come up short.

The powers that Congress was original given are, actually, quite few. The Legislature was to concern itself with coining money, setting up the Postal System, building roads, unifying the States' laws on bankruptcy and naturalization, authorizing patents and copyrights, and punishing crimes committed on the "high seas." The aforementioned are all vital and logical functions for Congress to perform; nonetheless, the remaining clauses in Article I, Section 8 delineate Congress' two most important powers: the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and the power to declare war and maintain the armed forces. Those two encompass, by my count, some 10 of the 18 clauses in this section. Thus it seems safe to say that the main activities in which Congress engaged were expected to simply be imposing taxes and dealing with warfare. Regrettably, in modern times, Congress no longer lines up with its Constitutional counterpart.

Congress' first power, that of taxation, has been thoroughly abused; never in their worst nightmares would the Founding Fathers have imagined a country in which the tax burden would be as high as ours is today. Between income taxes (which were first implemented in the Civil War, 90 years after the Founders' era), property taxes, sales taxes and all the other taxes Americans pay, it's safe to conclude that James Madison never intended for Congress' taxation power to be used that much.

The second power, the power related to warfare, has, in a very real sense, been abdicated. While the Congress may still be in charge of funding and raising the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force, the one thing they are not in charge of is sending those forces to war. That's right, Congress no longer has the power to declare war; and what's worse, they didn't lose that power, they simply gave it up. Of course, they didn't just give it up to anyone, they gave it up to the last person on earth the Founding Fathers wanted to have the power to declare war: the President.

Don't believe me? Consider this, the United States of America hasn't declared war since December 8, 1941; nevertheless, we've fought in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan and many other places since then. But how, without a declaration of war, can the Commander in Chief deploy forces all over the world? Unfortunately, nowadays, all the President has to do is either get a 'resolution' of support from Congress, like LBJ did in Vietnam, or go on a 'UN police task,' like Truman did in Korea. This is not a statement on how just or unjust all Wars since W.W.II are, but rather a statement on how the United States Congress has simply given the President the very thing they dreaded he would. Remember, our ancestors fought in opposition to a King, in part, because of how a monarch can rush to war at his own will.

Finally, as we all know, the modern American Congress has many, many, many, many, many more things it does than just overtax and abdicate declaring war; it handles Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid; it funds everything from education to its own pockets; and has snatched as much power as possible away from the States and the people (And, no, all of those things don't fall under the clause about setting up the Postal Service). Unfortunately, the advent of big government programs and power snatches has never been seriously questioned on the basis of Constitutional authority. As a matter of fact, questioning FDR's 'New Deal' got you put on a wiretapping list that actually included American citizens (unlike President Bush's).

Indeed, somewhere between the 16th amendment, the New Deal and Congressional 'authorizations' of force, it seems the United States Congress has lost sight of what it was intended to do. And naturally, 'We the People' are the ones who get hurt the most by this. Because a bloated, overburdened, and busy Congress, coupled with a Chief Magistrate holding excessive powers, diminishes the dream of men like Madison and Hamilton - not to mention our freedom.

Don't Mess With the Jews!

There is, indeed, one truly sane country left in the world today. One country that takes threats against itself seriously, has the guts to actually do something about those threats, and doesn't much care what anyone else in the world thinks about it. That country has spent the last 6 days bombing Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon. Perhaps 'bombing' is not the appropriate term - how about 'kicking the living sh*t out of them with airplanes'. Seriously, all Israel has done is bomb for 6 days and somewhere between 40 and 50% of all Hezbollah military capability has been destroyed. Ouch. That's like Italian tanks versus Ethiopian bows-and-arrows bad. (And yes, the Ethiopians vs. Italians is a real historical event.) Furthermore, I believe Israel will actually have the brains to stay and finish the job they started; instead of deciding half-way through that they feel like they've 'sent a message' and can go home.

Needless to say, I fully support Israel and its right to beat Hezbollah to a pulp. Terrorists who willingly attack innocent civilians do not need to have old Soviet-era rockets at their disposal. Fortunately, the task of getting rid of Hezbollah's weapons falls to Israel, a Nation who is quite happy to complete it.

Furthermore, what do these successful attacks say about Hezbollah and the situation in the Middle East? Or Islamic terrorism in general? Well, first of all, it shows us, once again, that Israel really does have a right to exist. Remember, Hezbollah is a group on par with the PLO, (who are also on the receiving end of this bombardment) and they have crumbled, for the umpteenth time, in the face of Israel. How can one possibly say that a people who lose 40% of their military capability in six days, despite not even being invaded, deserve to have a country? Remember if you run a country, you are in charge of "National Defense" something these Arab groups don't quite seem to have figured out. Especially compared to Israel.

Also, on a more philosophical note, this could tell us one of two things about Islamic Terrorism. Either a) the Islamic will to fight is weakening slightly or b) Bush was right. Hezbollah's resistance is quite minimal and, on top of that, they seem to be getting little or no support from the rest of the Arabic and Islamic world. To me, this seems an indication that Islamic militants really feel that Hezbollah can't win this fight; and given the Islamic terrorists 'Allah is with me so I'll never give up' attitudes, that's kind of surprising. On the other hand, it could mean that Islamic terrorists can't help Hezbollah fight back because they are already overcommitted in different places. In other words, no one can support Hezbollah because all their terrorists have been deployed to, say, Iraq. Which would course vindicate President Bush's belief that going into Iraq would attract the terrorists there and prevent them from doing harm elsewhere. Again, this is purely philosophical, but I find it compelling.

So, to our allies and friends in Israel: Good Luck and Happy Hezbollah Hunting!!