Playing online poker, texas hold 'em.
In three out of four consecutive hands, I drew 2, 7 unsuited.
For those of you who don't know, that's the worst possible hand.
Friday, August 18, 2006
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Foot in the door for Libertarians?
Perhaps not may people know this, but there is, and has been for some time, a libertarian in the House of Representatives today. His name is Ron Paul (TX-14).
Sadly, I cannot use a capital "l" in "libertarian", for Rep. Paul is officially a Republican. But don't let that fool you; Paul has close ties with the Libertarian Party, including a nomination for President in 1988.
Nevertheless, the Libertarian position is significantly weakened by Rep. Paul's status as a Republican. In the fiercely partisan America of 2006, fellow Republicans may see him as just another vote, while Democrats may dismiss him as a heretic (in addition to the "R" next to his name, Paul is staunchly "pro-life"). Even when he advances a libertarian agenda, he does little to legitimize the Libertarian party or its supporters.
Fortunately, there's something a-brewing on the horizon. In case you haven't followed the aftermath of Rep. Tom DeLay's (R-TX-22) resignation, it has been decided in court that the Republican Party cannot field another candidate on the 2006 ballot because of DeLay's primary victory. So Republicans find themselves in a tough spot, and they really only have two options at this point.
The first is to mount an aggressive campaign for a write-in candidate. Generally, such campaigns do not work, but because DeLay's district is 65% Republican, it certainly would not be impossible.
The second is to get behind the only other candidate on the ballot: Libertarian Bob Smither. Though this option may betray some Republican ideals, Smither likely has a better shot at the seat than any write-in candidate. This is extremely important when one considers the Democrats' not-too-bad chances of winning a House majority -- especially since Smither has pledged to caucus with the Republicans.
It is interesting to note that Mr. DeLay's predecessor in the 22nd district is none other than the aforementioned Ron Paul, perhaps indicating a libertarian-friendly populace.
Anyway, I'm no expert, but this is far more than a ray of hope for American libertarians. It's a real opening, and if Republican leaders make the right choice and support Smither, I believe he will win. And a victory for Bob Smither is a victory for everyone*.
*except the Democratic Party
Sadly, I cannot use a capital "l" in "libertarian", for Rep. Paul is officially a Republican. But don't let that fool you; Paul has close ties with the Libertarian Party, including a nomination for President in 1988.
Nevertheless, the Libertarian position is significantly weakened by Rep. Paul's status as a Republican. In the fiercely partisan America of 2006, fellow Republicans may see him as just another vote, while Democrats may dismiss him as a heretic (in addition to the "R" next to his name, Paul is staunchly "pro-life"). Even when he advances a libertarian agenda, he does little to legitimize the Libertarian party or its supporters.
Fortunately, there's something a-brewing on the horizon. In case you haven't followed the aftermath of Rep. Tom DeLay's (R-TX-22) resignation, it has been decided in court that the Republican Party cannot field another candidate on the 2006 ballot because of DeLay's primary victory. So Republicans find themselves in a tough spot, and they really only have two options at this point.
The first is to mount an aggressive campaign for a write-in candidate. Generally, such campaigns do not work, but because DeLay's district is 65% Republican, it certainly would not be impossible.
The second is to get behind the only other candidate on the ballot: Libertarian Bob Smither. Though this option may betray some Republican ideals, Smither likely has a better shot at the seat than any write-in candidate. This is extremely important when one considers the Democrats' not-too-bad chances of winning a House majority -- especially since Smither has pledged to caucus with the Republicans.
It is interesting to note that Mr. DeLay's predecessor in the 22nd district is none other than the aforementioned Ron Paul, perhaps indicating a libertarian-friendly populace.
Anyway, I'm no expert, but this is far more than a ray of hope for American libertarians. It's a real opening, and if Republican leaders make the right choice and support Smither, I believe he will win. And a victory for Bob Smither is a victory for everyone*.
*except the Democratic Party
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
All Your Nurse Are Belong to US
The New York Times today has a piece by Celia W. Dugger on a Senate proposal to allow more foreign nurses to enter our country. The plan, sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), is part of the all-encompassing immigration bill being loudly debated both in Congress and in public.
The Times headline for the article, "U.S. Plan to Lure Nurses May Hurt Poor Nations", is indicative of the publication's bias against the plan, which Dugger seems to share. The main point of the story seems to be that opening our borders to much-needed nurses will deprive nations such as the Philippines of their much-need nurses and that the proposal is therefore wrong.
I think that the focus of the article is somewhat misplaced. Here's something for concern:
Staggering, huh? So the Senate proposal is a bit of a no-brainer, especially in a nation where healthcare costs have become a top issue in public debate. (Funny how this news item hasn't gotten more attention; it pertains to both healthcare costs AND immigration)
Of course, nurses already in the U.S. oppose the plan, since more nurses lead to lower pay. So whose side should we take? I wholeheartedly take the side of the patients, who want better and cheaper care. And that means more nurses. Sorry, nurses.
But to reply to the headline: if foreign nations wish to keep nurses at home, they'll just have to do what we did: create an incentive scheme that encourages nurses to stay. Or train more nurses (after all, even the departed ones send money back). Call it blind optimism, but I think that hospitals (at least the private ones) will find a way to do so.
The Times headline for the article, "U.S. Plan to Lure Nurses May Hurt Poor Nations", is indicative of the publication's bias against the plan, which Dugger seems to share. The main point of the story seems to be that opening our borders to much-needed nurses will deprive nations such as the Philippines of their much-need nurses and that the proposal is therefore wrong.
I think that the focus of the article is somewhat misplaced. Here's something for concern:
The nurse proposal has strong backing from the American Hospital Association, which reported in April that American hospitals had 118,000 vacancies for registered nurses. The federal government predicted in 2002 that the accelerating shortfall of nurses in the United States would swell to more than 800,000 by 2020.
Staggering, huh? So the Senate proposal is a bit of a no-brainer, especially in a nation where healthcare costs have become a top issue in public debate. (Funny how this news item hasn't gotten more attention; it pertains to both healthcare costs AND immigration)
Of course, nurses already in the U.S. oppose the plan, since more nurses lead to lower pay. So whose side should we take? I wholeheartedly take the side of the patients, who want better and cheaper care. And that means more nurses. Sorry, nurses.
But to reply to the headline: if foreign nations wish to keep nurses at home, they'll just have to do what we did: create an incentive scheme that encourages nurses to stay. Or train more nurses (after all, even the departed ones send money back). Call it blind optimism, but I think that hospitals (at least the private ones) will find a way to do so.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
This is Truly Disgusting
Sorry... maybe I'll stop talking about sports teams' names before long. But this one's important.
The New York area's Major League Soccer team has once again changed its name. At first, they were cumbersomely called the "New York/New Jersey MetroStars." Which was fine with me. Then they decided to drop the locale out and just use "MetroStars." A tad ambiguous, I suppose, but are there really any other places you can call "Metro"?
This, however, is a new low. Brace yourself. The team has been purchased by Red Bull Co. Ltd., the Austrian firm and maker of the popular energy drink, and it will begin this season as "Red Bull New York", or the "Red Bulls".
DO NOT GO TO THEIR GAMES. TELL YOUR FRIENDS NOT TO GO TO THEIR GAMES.
We've all witnessed the sales of stadium naming rights. We've all seen everything at a NASCAR event, right down to the lugnuts, flagpoles, and the bubbles in the fans' beer, plastered with ads. But a team name is sacred. I cannot, in good conscience, refer to a team I like as the "Red Bulls". And I can't like a team I can't talk about. So I guess they've lost at least one fan.
It's really a shame; I've always wanted to go to a game. Not now, though.
Let's all let those Austrian bastards know that New York doesn't tolerate this kind of shit. Stop going. Don't buy their gear. Send them nasty letters. Hell, stop drinking Red Bull; there are plenty of other options these days.
I am really pissed off.
The New York area's Major League Soccer team has once again changed its name. At first, they were cumbersomely called the "New York/New Jersey MetroStars." Which was fine with me. Then they decided to drop the locale out and just use "MetroStars." A tad ambiguous, I suppose, but are there really any other places you can call "Metro"?
This, however, is a new low. Brace yourself. The team has been purchased by Red Bull Co. Ltd., the Austrian firm and maker of the popular energy drink, and it will begin this season as "Red Bull New York", or the "Red Bulls".
DO NOT GO TO THEIR GAMES. TELL YOUR FRIENDS NOT TO GO TO THEIR GAMES.
We've all witnessed the sales of stadium naming rights. We've all seen everything at a NASCAR event, right down to the lugnuts, flagpoles, and the bubbles in the fans' beer, plastered with ads. But a team name is sacred. I cannot, in good conscience, refer to a team I like as the "Red Bulls". And I can't like a team I can't talk about. So I guess they've lost at least one fan.
It's really a shame; I've always wanted to go to a game. Not now, though.
Let's all let those Austrian bastards know that New York doesn't tolerate this kind of shit. Stop going. Don't buy their gear. Send them nasty letters. Hell, stop drinking Red Bull; there are plenty of other options these days.
I am really pissed off.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)