That’s pretty obvious, but this is not: currently, the Obama campaign is heavily out-spending the Romney campaign on advertisement. It seems that the reason is campaign finance laws: Romney spent most of his “allowed” funds during the primary, and will not be able to spend much more until late August. In the meantime, Obama didn’t spend any money on primaries, and so he gets a huge advantage.
This particular advantage will go away in late August, once Romney is able to spend down the huge fundraising advantage he has over Obama.
Solar plants are going out of style faster than disco. It’s like the government isn’t very good at picking winning technologies or something…
I love Robert Rector and Katherine Bradley’s topic so much I want to steal it for myself: Obama ends welfare reform as we know it. Mickey Kaus, 1990s New Democrat extraordinaire, has a lengthy discussion on the topic. Mitt Romney hasn’t really said much about this yet, but there are negative murmurs.
A few William Briggs links.
This is an ongoing series at Power Line that I really like. Not too long ago, they had a few posts on the topic. First, another reminder that the NHS has death panels (or at least financial mechanisms to ensure that they kill off the elderly). When the people receiving services are not the people paying for services, there are no financial incentives to get it right. The bureaucrats who run the programs see the bottom-line figures, realize that they can’t afford the explosion of services brought about by decoupling payer from recipient, and figure out ways to cut costs in a politically accessible manner. Note that this does apply to private insurance companies, at least to an extent. This is why the idea of fully-covered (with a minor copay) “health insurance” is a misnomer and why linking health insurance to an employer is a silly notion.
Also in England, don’t get sick on the weekends. Government bureaucrats don’t like to work weekends.
Finally, there is no cholera in a socialist paradise, so this has to be mistaken. It’s probably propaganda put in by running-dog imperialist lackies.
My favorite part of Pauldotcom Security Weekly is Mr. Jack Daniel, man of the epic beard. Here’s a link to a recent rant of his. Be sure to read the Gartner post in the comments to get a slightly different perspective.
Very quickly, I have not used a Web Application Firewall before. I would imagine, however, that their primary value comes when you know a) which vulnerabilities you currently have in your web applications, and b) that your developers cannot fix these vulnerabilities quickly. WAFs will need to be tuned like any other security solution, and they may introduce their own vulnerabilities—it is software, after all.
I hate taxes in general, so of course I’m going to hate this…
Over at Heritage, they say that the right amount is $0. Iain Murray wondered if AEI was going to support a carbon tax. Ramesh Ponnuru sets the story straight.
That’s Ironman from Political Calculations. A couple of quick links to posts a month or so old…