Happy Thursday. Apologies for the layoff from posting - things have gotten a little busier around here and, believe it or not, I try to step away from the computer these days.
That said, here I am Thursday morning, flipping through my morning news stories and came up with this.

Now what it basically says it that one DUI is worse than another. While I'll agree that someone who has 10 drinks is more dangerous behind the wheel than the "120 pound woman who has two glasses of wine in two hours" mentioned in the story, I'll qualify it that same way I do mandatory minimums. If she is over 0.8, she is still breaking the law. And not only that, this 0.8 number isn't some arbitrary thing that people just decided on. It is the point at which your body is not coherent enough to be operating a vehicle. So she could also be putting lives in danger. So here is my question: what is wrong with a system that will not let someone start their car if they are over the legal limit? Can't this save lives, including that of the driver themselves? Or maybe the four teenagers killed in New Mexico recently? There are privacy issues, especially if it is set at a level below the legal limit, but if not, if it is set to where it has the ability to save lives, why isn't this on every car in America? And if you are someone who drinks and drives, why are you not trying to save yourself the tens-of-thousands of dollars that a DUI would cost? Everyday 36 people die in America as a result of impaired driving. Twenty percent of teen traffic deaths are caused by teen driving and the leading cause of death among teens is a car accident. The cost of alcohol-related driving accidents last year topped $51 billion. What is wrong with this step to curb one of the worst problems in this country?
Please comment.

Other news:

The House is getting a new voting system.

New Rasmussen poll on who Republicans would like to see win the 2012 GOP nomination. Yes, it is early for this stuff, and most of you who read this are Dems (sorry Jim), but with all the Palin stuff happening it is relevant.

Also, quickly, I will start getting to healthcare stuff soon. Just haven't been looking much at it yet.

This is from yesterday, but still worth the read. Google looks to continue its battle with Microsoft by challenging Windows.

Bud Withers of the Seattle Times has an interesting Title IX breakdown for UW and WSU. For the record, and at the risk of being slapped around by the many female athletes I know, there is some sentiment that parts of Title IX are outdated. I absolutely agree that it is a very successful piece of legislation that has significantly increased women's participation in sports. It is also true that women's crew does not bring in as much money as football, and yet it is the only offset for total number of athletes and scholarships given. The UW does a pretty good job, I think, and the success of it's women's sports (two National Championship in 2008-09) has shown that.


Forgive me, but this is a rather "sweet" way to die. Okay, that was bad. But if you had to go...

The Dallas Cowboys have the most ridiculous stories...

And another Dallas team, the Mavs, are getting older by the day. The average age between Dallas and San Antonio must be 35...

And just guess what this is. The countdown six days...

Stay Classy.