do it for the children!

Automobiles are abused. There are actually people on the road right now that are driving drunk and/or under the influence of some illegal drug. There are also people driving around with either no license or a revoked/suspended license. People steal cars and use them in crimes; others use vehicles to try and kill other people (e.g. the UNC incident).

According to the CDC, 45,113 people died in automobile accidents in the U.S. in 2004. Aside from disease and natural causes, car accidents are the leading cause of death in America. Shouldn’t we ban all cars, trucks, suv’s, and motorcycles? Look at all the abuses and deaths! If not for ourselves, we should do it for the children!

This argument is obviously ridiculous. Just because there are a few crazies out there who abuse automobiles, it doesn’t mean that the law-abiding citizens should have to buy a horse and buggy like Jedediah and Zechariah. There should be strict punishment for those who break the law, but the responsible people who follow the laws should be left alone.

Now, let’s look at gun control. The vast majority of gun owners in this country are licensed, responsible, and follow the laws relating to gun ownership. Granted, there are some retards who use guns illegally (e.g. carry without a license/permit, steal them to commit crimes, kill people with them, etc.), but that doesn’t mean we should ban them from everyone. Punish the criminals, but don’t disarm the populace in the name of a safer environment. (We've got to protect the children!) We all know that gun control cannot work. It’s been proven over and over in cities all over the world.

-Just for comparison’s sake, 29,569 people died in 2004 in a firearm related incident, including police shootings, accidents, and suicides. (Suicides alone account for over half of all firearm related deaths.) Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. Brady!

Put on some headphones...

...and enjoy holophonic sound!

Best way to catch an illegal? A Bullet.

My friend, Ben, works for the Border Patrol in Ajo, Arizona. His unit recently confiscated some horses from drug runners in the area, and the animals have now been transformed into agents of our federal government. Instead of roaming the desert in his 4x4, Ben now mounts his faithful steed, Bullet, to run his patrols in search of illegals; and apparently, Bullet is just as excited about catching the bad guys as Ben is.

Ben loves his job, but he does, occasionally, become dispirited with the handling of our border security. He’s told me that for every truck seized, 4 more cross the border unhindered. The agents know it, but there’s not much they can do to stop it. There simply is not enough manpower or resources to catch them all. The drug lords have scouts on every mountain top fully outfitted with nightvision and radio communications. They watch every move our boys make, and counter by relaying to runners the best routes to avoid being caught.

According to the DEA, here are the official statistics of the amounts of confiscated drugs in Arizona for 2006 alone:

12.5 lbs of Hashish
188.5 lbs of Heroine
1,472.5 lbs of Methamphetamine
6,655.9 lbs of Cocaine
777,499.8 lbs of Marijuana

If the CBP are only catching 20% of those crossing the border, imagine how many drugs are actually making it to the streets to be sold to our kids.

I’ve got several theories that would explain why our government is so sedentary in their attitude toward our borders, but I think I’ll save those for another day. Besides, you might think I’m nutsier than I already know you think I am.

Check this out

Nothing like violent Frenchmen.

Thanks to Joe Healy for the link.

YouDebate 2008

Did you catch any of the Youtube Democratic Presidential Debate Monday night? I don’t have any television stations at home, but I did see about 10 minutes of it while I waited for my sandwich at Firehouse Subs (their Club-on-a-Sub is divine!). The 2 questions I heard were:

“Hello, America. Hello, presidential candidates. This is Will from Boston, Massachusetts. And I hope, you know, they put this question on. It's a question in the back of everybody's head. You know, in some people, it's further back than others, collecting cobwebs.
But is African-Americans ever going to get reparations for slavery?
I know you all are going to run around this question, dipping and dodging, so let's see how far you all can get.”

and:

“Do you believe the response in the wake of Hurricane Katrina would have been different if the storm hit an affluent, predominantly white city? What roles do you believe race and class played in the storm's aftermath? And if you acknowledge that race and class affected the response efforts, what can you do to ensure that this won't happen in the future? And what can you do to ensure this nation's most needy people, in times of crisis and always, something will be done to help them too?”

Gimme a break! CNN did a great job choosing which questions to air, don't you think? (It’s no wonder that I no longer watch television!)

CNN has cheapened these debates to the point that I simply cannot take them seriously. I’ve got no love for any of the democratic nominees (not much more for any in the GOP either, for that matter) but this "modernized" format is not fair to the candidates and it's not fair to us. I'd say it's comical at best. There’s a reason that professional reporters moderate and ask the questions in these debates. I don’t care what Dimwit from Podunk, TN has to say about Bush hating black people. I want to hear real questions about real issues facing us today. Immigration, the War, bipartisan pandering to special interest groups, etc. (Not that the reporters always ask the most pertinent questions, but it's better than a snowman asking questions about how his children will survive with the rise in global warming!)

Am I alone? Does anyone find this new format “groundbreaking,” “relative,” “engaging,” or “refreshing?” Or am I right in declaring that it's completely asinine?