apple juice

Hutchinson outlines health care plan:

Independence Party gubernatorial candidate Peter Hutchinson and his physician running mate called Friday for mandatory medical insurance and a statewide indoor workplace smoking ban as part of a broad health care reform plan they said could save Minnesotans $7 billion a year.

I know you all thought I was a flaming liberal, but I’m voting Independent for Governor this year.

How high gas prices make politicians stupid. By Jacob Weisberg

Sustained high prices will bring about behavioral and political changes: energy conservation, public transportation, less exurban sprawl, and eventually the economic viability of alternative fuel sources such as biomass, fuel cells, wind, and solar power, which may one day undermine the power of the oil oligarchs. Are politicians too stupid to understand this, or just smart enough not to say it aloud?

The last time I picked my horse early in the game, it didn’t work out so well, (I still believe he has the right answers though!) This time around, I’m hoping for a change of fortune.

This will probably be the first of many links you will have to endure on the subject…

Peter Hutchinson: Memo to Tim Pawlenty Re: State of the State 

Everyone has those favorite examples of ‘your tax dollars at work’. Those silly little things that our elected officials find time to do when they should be figuring out other things. Such as:

• The war in Iraq
• The environment
• The budget

Well, here’s my favorite new example. It’s barney cam (realplayer). Oh my goodness. Watch this video, and think of all the people that took time to participate in this foolishness.

Seriously, they probably sat down to storyboard that thing out! There are about 15 different people in the first 2 minutes! Who has time for this? Who has time to blog about this 😉 (it only took 2 minutes to type this out, I promise)

Apparently our President has said that “both sides ought to be properly taught” in the “debate” about evolution. I put debate in quotes, because as far as scientists are concerned, there isn’t a debate. The debate has already happened.

More importantly, two really interesting, and hypocritical things are wrapped up in that statement.

• This is the President who would like us all to believe that there is no grey area, and that you are either “with us or against us”, black and white, good and evil. But in this case, he is simply looking to create grey area, create confusion and doubt.
• Secondly, (as was recently just said to me), isn’t this like saying we should teach kids racial profiling, so they can understand both sides of the debate? Or we should teach kids to hit each other when they are trying to solve differences (so they can see how that works compared to talking it out). It’s a pretty slippery slope… and it’s the polar opposite position that Bush has taken on every other debate, that it’s his way or the highway. (as they say)

Read the whole article here at the NYTimes: Bush Remarks Roil Debate on Teaching of Evolution

Also, don’t forget about Karl Rove (oh, wait, I guess he never existed (thanks eric)), and his lovely dealings with Robert Novak, and the fact that Bush sidestepped the Senate in appointed John Bolton as our UN Ambassador. Or the new energy bill handout to big Gas and Oil companies. Wouldn’t want to divert your attention. (Ah, dang it! I fell in to their trap! I diverted your attention from real issues!)

Many juvenile crimes ‚Äî such as the carjacking that is so central to “Grand Theft Auto” ‚Äî are conventionally described as “thrill-seeking” crimes. Isn’t it possible that kids no longer need real-world environments to get those thrills, now that the games simulate them so vividly? The national carjacking rate has dropped substantially since “Grand Theft Auto” came out. Isn’t it conceivable that the would-be carjackers are now getting their thrills on the screen instead of the street?

The author makes some pretty good points. I hate to see gov’t getting into regulating what goes into video games. I’m perfectly fine with ratings, and as far as I’m concerned, GTA should’ve been MA all along. We can’t have gov’t policing everything. Parents need to understand what’s going on in the games their kids are playing, the stores need to not sell explicit games to kids, and the kids need to be educated about what’s right, what’s wrong, and everything in between.

Anyways, good article, check it: Hillary vs. the Xbox

Sorry, I know I’m on a bit of a tangent with the administration right now. But if I could provide one little example of how warped the people leading our country are:

Perhaps you heard that the Prime Minister of India was in town to discuss freedom and democracy? It says right here at the White House website: President, Prime Minister of India Discuss Freedom and Democracy

When I sit around and discuss Freedom and Democracy, I usually talk about why it’s nice to live in a country where I can speak my mind freely. I talk about the right to vote. I talk about our system of government.

One thing that doesn’t enter the conversation, when speaking of Freedom and Democracy, is Nuclear Weapons.

Call me old fashioned if you like, (really, there is a comments section) but I just don’t believe that more nuclear weapons are what we need in the world. In fact, I think we need far far less of them. We should work every diplomatic angle to prevent other countries from getting them. We should then be working to reduce the numbers that we and other countries possess.

So back to our little Freedom and Democracy chat with the Prime Minister of India. Apparently in the bizzaro White House world, Freedom and Democracy is code for “sell them Nuclear technology”.

Quoting Slate‘s 19th of July Today’s Papers here:

The Journal says the Indian nukes deal “rocks the decades-old” non-proliferation system in which countries were allowed to buy nuclear technology only if they forswore trying to develop nukes. “If you open the door for India, a lot of other countries are likely to step through it,” said one non-proliferation expert, in what seems be a widely held opinion.

Now I realize that this agreement is for civilian nuclear energy technology, but as noted in many articles today, the key is that there is no agreement not to use the technology we sell them to develop nuclear weapons.

I’m all for Nuclear energy. Seriously. I think it could safely supply us with a huge portion of our energy needs, but if we’re selling this to other countries, we’d better be sure they aren’t turning around and making weapons. That should be in the contract: No nuclear weapons. Apparently they left that line out this time.