Wednesday, February 07, 2007

I, Democrat

Democrat Senator Carl Kruger is proposing legislation to ban people from using personal electronic devices while crossing the street. This is in response to two recent deaths in his district that involved people run over while listening to their iPods.

This is just another in a long line of proposals by Democrats to outlaw anything and everything that they deem dangerous. Sugar, fried chicken, cigarettes, SUVs, guns, coffee and the list goes on. Essentially, we need to be saved from ourselves because we are too stupid to take care of ourselves. It kind of reminds me of the Will Smith version of I, Robot. You know the robots want to take over and make us prisoners because the robots are charged with our protection. If we are imprisoned and kept basically as pets we can cause ourselves no harm.

Two things:

1. People die. All the time. All day, everyday. It's what we do on a regular basis. We do it in all kinds of unseemly ways. Part of what makes life precious is that we risk dying everyday. That's why we have to make it count. If every that could harm us were to disappear tomorrow the world would be a pretty dull place.

2. Democrats are proponents of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. So much so that they would supplant any and all religious teachings with this theory. A big part of the theory of evolution is the notion of natural selection. Briefly, natural selection dictates that animals that do not properly adapt to their environment die, and with them the genetic line that produces animals that cannot adapt. Members of the species continue to die off until one of two things happen, the species adapts as a whole or goes extinct. See Dinosaurs. The same applies to people.

So why is it that Democrats want to forsake one of the very ideals they hold dear? Is it that they have good intentions. Have they taken a play out of the book of Big Brother in 1984?

None of this matters. The question we should be asking is "Where will they stop?" Just in case, I call dibs on the handle "Bubble Boy".

Monday, February 05, 2007

Big offensive in Iraq announced...

...In plenty of time to allow the bad guys to melt away.

Believe me, I'm all happy that we are launching this big operation in Baghdad but would someone please tell me why we are announcing it? Is it me or is the military and its leaders over communicating just a little bit?

I have a problem with this for many reasons. The first being that announcing your offense, i.e. letting everyone know that it's going to happen removes one of the biggest deciding factors in battle, the element of surprise. I just read it this morning, so I'm sure the insurgency knew about it well before that.

So what can we expect? The leadership of the insurgency will hightail it out of there well before the shooting starts. They will leave behind of few of the standard issue, not so bright, fanatical shooters with the promise of martyrdom. Of course these pre-martyrs will end up on the slab, not before making sure some women and children can be placed in the line of fire for propaganda to be sure. But the fact that they know we are coming increases the risk to our soldiers.

Finally, there is this notion of feeding this to the media. Why does the US Military insist on trying to play nice with the same media that is intend on making them look as bad as possible? You can play ball only so long when the other team is constantly screwing you over.

Congratulations COLTs!

Indianapolis Colts take the Super Bowl.

I've never been much of a football fan but last night it felt different. It felt kind of like I and all other Hoosiers were a part of the win.