Only in Kansas

Only in Kansas will you have this awesome trifecta:
1.) An Attorney General (Phil Kline) who seems to have outlawing abortion as his #1 priority- notice I didn't say the welfare of children was his first priority
2.) A bible thumpin school board that, with their many seconds of expertise, has taken it among themselves to review scientific theories considered valid by the scientific community (like evolution, like these bible beaters are a good judge of that, as if intelligent design is a sound theory with no actual basis in fact)
3.) The brilliant idea to have school kids have to opt in (the decision would be their parents) rather than opt out of sex education at school.

Let me get this straight, we have a District Attorney who supposedly is concerned about the welfare of kids (supposedly explaining his ban abortion at all costs or at least restrict it in every way possible) but at the same time we want to limit sex education? Think just a few parents in the heart of bible country here will not opt in for sex ed for their kids with the tried and not true tradition of "if you don't talk about sex the kids won't think about it"? Yeah, maybe a few thousand or tens of thousands.

See the idiocy there? We want to prevent abortion but instead of improving sex education (the only real way to reduce teen pregnancy) we want to reduce it and water it down?

This is what I refer to as PFD
That means pretty f**kin dumb.

Seriously, someone is just not thinking there. Yeah, lets look out for the welfare of kids by having more unplanned pregnancies instead of fewer.

Gas price caps in Hawaii, good deal or bad?

You have probably heard by now that the State of Hawaii has started setting price caps for the prices of wholesale gasoline. In the short term it could lead to somewhat lower gas prices, or at least prevent too much of an increase, but long term its unlikely to do much good and may even make the situation worse.

Very seldom do price caps actually do what they are intended to accomplish. In this case, if the caps are set too low, and reduce refiners profits, you might see refineries reduce their supply or even leave the market altogether. Past experience with price controls (remember rent controls under Nixon, they did not work too well) shows that they are seldom a good idea. I don't blame the state for trying as high as gas prices are, but such an action ignores the economic realities of the marketplace. By setting caps you discourage any other refiners from trying to enter the market, and possibly reduce supply. If you know anything about economics (I do, I have a minor in it), you know that if demand stays the same and you reduce the supply, you get higher prices. That is what is happening with gas prices all over the country. If you reduce the price that gas companies can charge, they logically may elect to supply less if there profits are too limited. Then if one refinery shuts down, the supply drops considerably, resulting in higher prices. If prices are artificially capped, the supply will likely drop, meaning shortages instead of higher prices.

I don't blame Hawaii for trying, but I don't think its going to have the desired result.

Check out this article on yahoo from ap if you want to know more:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050902/ap_on_re_us/gas_cap

Website of the week, Sept. #1

This site should interest everyone. Its a site run by AAA, called the fuel gauge report that lists average gas prices in the nation and also state by state. You can even drill down to all of the major metro areas in each state. They update the site daily, check it out at the link below, even though gas prices are pretty damn depressing.

Here it is:
http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/

Chief Justice Rehnquist dead, Roberts to be Chief Justice?

I had no idea that Chief Justice William Rehnquist was that close to death, so I was more than a little surprised to hear that he had passed away. I knew he was ill, but from the way he talked about not retiring, I assumed he thought he was getting better. President Bush has decided to nominate John Roberts as Chief Justice instead of just nominating him to the court.

This move will likely mean more in depth hearings, but I would be suprised if there is that much opposition to Roberts. There will, of course, be some from the liberals, but in the end I am pretty sure he will be confirmed. While some liberals seem to think President Bush should nominate someone who steadfastly supports Roe. v Wade, why would a Republican President do such a thing, especailly when the religious right has so much power in the Republican party.

For more on this, check out this link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/rehnquist