A new(?) non-profit organization, McCain Source, is running “informative” commercials about…you guessed it…John McCain. The latest commercial that I saw was one that informed me that McCain voted not to extend coverage to uninsured children, but I already new this. What was really informative was what was implied: McCain does not care about children! Who actually buys this stuff? I love children, the elderly, the oppressed, deer that accidentally die when crossing the road…To prove this, do I have to provide free healthcare, free education at Harvard, free food, free housing, guaranteed job, and subsidies or tax rebates from all the guilty rich people? BS.

McCain Source is run by Progressive Media USA, a 501C4 issue advocacy organization who informs the public “about the risks of conservative policies and leaders” and counters the “right-wing message machine”. They claim to be non-partisan and I think that is a reasonable claim, don’t you? Anyone know about these folks?

An aside on healthcare: I am certainly not confident in the nominees’ abilities to carry on an intelligent conversation regarding healthcare. As such, I predict that there will be many “health care” ads, articles, and propaganda that pray on the fears of the ignorant.

Many of the illegal immigrants leaving Great Britain are citing lack of sun and poor health care. I can’t think of anything else to add. Read it here.

I thought these were pretty good reading.

Interesting story of how ethanol (the wine of the religion of global warming) will starve the world.
http://www.nysun.com/news/f…eclipsing-climate-change

Another reason why I won’t vote at the 2008 presidential election (we have three pussy democrats running).
http://www.reuters.com/article/mark…2535509420080425

The Bolivian President has enlightened us:

Bolivia’s left-wing president said unbridled industrial development was responsible for the pillaging of natural resources.

Speaking through an interpreter at the UN headquarters in New York, he had this uncompromising message: “If we want to save our planet earth, to save life, to save mankind, we have a duty to put an end to the capitalist system.”

What an absolutely ridiculous and unproductive statement. Has anyone informed President Morales what the end result is in every country on the planet where capitalism DOESN’T exist? Let’s just ignore the fact that the only path OUT of poverty for indigenous civilizations on the planet has always been capitalism. Are we going to pretend that capitalism “doesn’t work” because of industrialists who pillage the environment? At what point is someone going to point out two very critical facts:

1) Capitalism is not–by its definition–synonymous with raping and pillaging of the environment.
2) Bio-fuels are a bad idea NOT because they are “putting cars ahead of people” but because they are inefficient.

Apparently it is illegal to insult someone. Bridget Bardot is going to trial for making someone feel bad. Awww, didn’t the “victim” know the benefits of being rubber (as opposed to glue) and that sticks and stones…Wait, this is in France, but it could very well be the US.

The capital outlay bill approved by lawmakers each year essentially has been a wish list that leaves decision-making to the governor.

The governor’s office submitted its recommendations for the bill. Lawmakers then added more projects than there was money. That left the governor’s office to choose among hundreds of items to determine which few actually get in line for state dollars. The State Bond Commission must vote on whether to grant lines of credit to projects submitted by the governor, but that vote was seen as a rubber stamp because the commission is packed with the governor’s allies.

Jindal wants the process overhauled to limit the annual construction budget bill passed by the Legislature to five years of projects for which the state can pay. He issued an executive order Tuesday outlining a reworking that includes setting up an evaluation system to review the projects sought by executive branch agencies, lawmakers and local government agencies. It’s amazing that allocating only the amount of money the state can afford to spend is considered a revolutionary idea.

http://www.nola.com/newsflas…storylist=louisiana

Both of these stories were right beside each other in the Post and I couldn’t help but connect them.

First, the Death Penalty for non-murderers is being put to the test in Louisiana:

[O]n Wednesday the court will consider whether a person who rapes a child is different. Louisiana prosecutors will argue that the same societal mores that have persuaded justices to spare certain categories of criminals lead in the opposite direction when it comes to child rapists, demanding an expansion of capital punishment, not a retrenchment.

So, the question here is: Is the death penalty appropriate for someone who hasn’t taken a life themselves? Raping a child is probably as close as it gets, and my first instinct is to say, “Yes.”

Second, of course, is the raid on the FLDS compound in Texas:

[Warren] Jeffs dubbed those chosen for the ranch as the “elect” or “heart’s core,” selected to live in the “holy land,” as he called the compound. The adults were his most loyal followers and the young children were the least “contaminated” by the outside world, former church members say. According to court documents, adherents living at the ranch practiced the most extreme tenets of FLDS doctrine, including forcing girls as young as 13 to “spiritually marry” older men for the purpose of bearing their children.

And the question I have here is: At what point has polygamy and marrying 13-year-old girls been lumped into one bag?

And of course the uniting questions are:

What role does the state play in protecting children from their parents, and how much should our laws value the safety of our children enough to a) take them from their families, and b) punish those that violate their innocence equally to those who take their lives.

I remember a conversation I had with someone about abortion rights. A familiar line came up: “The Government should stay out of our bedrooms.” Hmmm. I wonder.

Last week, Bloomberg ran an article about McCain’s meager (when compared to Obama) campaign fund-raising. Just looking at the numbers, it just doesn’t look that good for Mr. McCain.

Is this enough of a reason for McCain take a second look at Mr. Rolling-in-the-dough Romney? Or shall we rest on the old adage, “Slow and steady wins the race?” Anyone have any ideas about McCain’s lackluster performance in the fundraising arena?

What shall we take away from campaign fundraising? Is Obama’s windfall due to the fact that so many people do not like Hillary; are his supporters trying to buy his nomination? Time will tell how much money the dem nominee will continue generate after the nomination is wrapped up.

SCOTUS decided on the 25th of March on the Medellin v. Texas case. Essentially it asserts that International Treaties (in this case, the U.N. Vienna Convention) are not automatically enforceable judicially, and the wording of the treaty itself can be used to determine whether the law must be codified by Executive or Legislative action.

The Vienna Convention held that foreign nationals needed to be notified of their right to consult their consulate if they were arrested and charged. The justice system in Texas had not offered Medellin that right, so he brought it up on appeal in the U.S. District Court, and it eventually made its way up to the Supreme Court.

I’m of the opinion that Justice Roberts (and the other four in the majority) have this right, legally. There’s a little debate at the Federalist Society which is interesting. If you can make your way through the legal stuff, (and if I can…you can) you’ll see those that support the decision have a pretty strong argument.

As always, though, with these international cases, I try to pretend that if an American was in another country and committed a heinous crime, would I want them to be extradited? Would it depend on the crime? Or would it depend on the country? Or neither?

It’s an interesting case.

I just received an update from Dr Boustany explaining some of the new reforms Bobby Jindal is trying to establish at the state level. There was also a poll which asked if I would prefer to see a doctor that used electronic records that were patient owned. Of all the medical tests I’ve taken over the years I’d have to say I own none of them, and don’t have ready access to them…anyway, here’s the post from Dr. Boustany.

During my career as a heart surgeon, I saw too many patients who were trapped in a paper-based system that led to duplicative tests and tragic avoidable medical errors. Despite the advancement of innovative health information technology, America’s healthcare system remains trapped in the 20th century.

The need for health IT and health information exchange became even more apparent during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, when I saw displaced patients present themselves in makeshift clinics with little or no medical history to guide their health providers. To date, many physicians remain reluctant to convert their offices to electronic health records because many are unwilling or unable to handle the cost.

We must do more to empower patients and providers with better information about health care costs and quality, and protect patients’ control over their personally identifiable information and individual treatment decisions.

I believe both political parties clearly understand that we need to modernize our healthcare system to give patients better value for their healthcare dollars.

The Governor is right to spearhead this important issue at the state level, and I look forward to working towards straightforward solutions to increase access for all Americans to quality healthcare while decreasing costs.