Sorry I’ve not been posting much this week. I seem to have aggravated a repetitive stress injury lately, and that has limited my typing.

In any case, I wanted to take this opportunity today to do something I rarely do: cite Bill O’Reilly. Specifically, his “talking points” memo from today’s show:

“The Taliban took credit for the attack [on the base in Afghanistan at which Vice President Cheney was staying]. And that should remind everybody that the global war on terror is still underway. And things are not going well.

There are a few key reasons for this. First, most nations are sitting out the war on terror, and a good many of them are rooting against the USA and our allies, if you can believe it. Muslim killers know they can count on people like Vladimir Putin, Jacques Chirac, and the government of Spain to allow them to kill at will.

Right now, the Taliban is taking advantage of Pakistan’s unwillingness to shut them down. The Taliban killers have a sanctuary in that country. And President Musharraf is basically hiding under his desk.

The terrorists also understand that the far left in America doesn’t want to fight the war on terror and will frequently undermine it. We’re talking about organizations like the ACLU, far left Internet sites, and some mainstream media outlets.

Also, Iraq has clearly been a setback in the terror war, but not for the reasons the far left wants you to believe.”

He goes on to say that the reason the Iraq War is going poorly is because decades of violence and tyranny have left the Iraqis more interested in getting revenge on each other than it building a country.

Continue reading »

Feb 272007
 

If you have a half hour to kill, there’s a fun short story by Isaac Asimov that is a fun read. Its got a lot of fun ideas including a nice twist at the end that is fairly thought provoking. I thought I’d bring it to your attention.

 

Here’s what I don’t understand – why is so much weight put on the first two states in the primary. I mean, its not like Iowa and New Hampshire have all that many electoral votes. Sure, its momentum. But things that appeal in the midwest and northeast may be different than those that appeal in the west and south… and the west and south have a lot of electoral votes.

So, if I were a midling candidate, I would think my best bet would be to not bother with those first two states. While the Clinton and Obama campaigns pour tens of millions of dollars into two states, and most of their campaigning time, I head to other states that I’d have less competition in, and have more electoral votes to spare. It seems game theoretically like a better strategy. Why don’t candidates do this?

 

These four candidates represent the second tier in the race for the GOP nomination. None of them are likely to win the nomination, but all of them have at least some national name recognition, none of them have any experience with foreign policy, and all of them need to solidify a hold on the Christian conservative vote to have even a shot at winning. And they are all worth keeping an eye on, win or lose.

Continue reading »

 

I heard an interesting (but unsubstantiated) claim the other day about a problem facing hospitals. Because hospitals are required by law to admit anybody who comes to the emergency room, regardless of their ability to pay, homeless people are going to the emergency room and complaining of generic pains so as to get admitted and have a place to sleep for the night. Since a hospital stay costs thousands of dollars and takes up doctor time and beds that could go to real patients, this is a serious issue. Or at least, if it’s true it’s a serious issue.

If it’s not true, it seems as though its only a matter of time until it becomes so, as homeless people figure it out. So what’s the solution? Shelters are one obvious answer, but that assumes that the homeless have the ability and desire to go to a shelter over a hospital. And almost any policy I can think of would have serious externalities…

© 2012 leftfielder.org Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha