Interestingly, Staff Hospital is one of the trusts that has been made a "foundation" trust in the current push towards an internal-market driven NHS. The idea is that, while normal acute trusts were closely monitored by the health authority, foundation trusts are given a lot more leeway in managing their affairs. The long term goal was to semi-privatise these trusts as they proved more financially independant and proved their flagship status. They already run by charging by service provided rather than by simple budget allocation. The problem has been that the move to a more loosely controlled model has allowed people tobasically fudge their figures in a way that hits the targets rather than improving healthcare as a whole.
Oh, and the Daily Mail is one of the more extreme papers in the UK. I'd get my information from a more unbiased source, like the Times (centre-right), Guardian (left), Independant (centre-left) or Telegraph (right).Comment Posted By Drongo On 25.02.2010 @ 10:07
"This simple and fateful trigger decision to attack is in the hands of the Israelis, not us. "
Interesting observation. So the decision whether America goes to war lies with the Israeli government.
Mearsheimer and Walt must feel at least a little vindicated.Comment Posted By Drongo On 5.01.2010 @ 13:07
"“The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.”
Your placing a futher caviot in the definition for non-combatants is your own addition."
Some sort of caveat is necessary because otherwise the repeated threats of force against Iraq, and indeed, the use of force in both Gulf Wars would fit the above definition and could therefore be described as terrorism.
I'd say that an addition of two definitions, (1) For non-state actors engaging in violence for political ends, and (2) Non-state actors enacting violence against a civilian population not of that state for political pourpose at the behest of a state.Comment Posted By Drongo On 12.11.2009 @ 07:57
"Not to mention the audacity of a sitting American president to actually think that his mere presence would sway people who more than likely hate America anyway!"
So, let me get this straight. Obama should have been the only leader of a country up for the Olympics who didn't turn up, yes?
And if all the other leaders were there and Obama didn't bother, you would have been praising his sound judgement, yes?Comment Posted By Drongo On 3.10.2009 @ 17:05
from this sode of the world the general observation is that Obama did a pretty perfectory, pro-forma effort even though everyone knew that there was no chance of Chicago winning (Brazil's bid included the observation that the games have never been to latin America. What does Chicago have to offer in comparison?)
The man seemed to play it about as much as he could be bothered.
And what's this "Spent political capital" nonsense? "Observed the political niceties" seems to about cover it.
Oh, and given the tiny amount of effort he put into it in comparison to other countries (Blair for example spent three days there constantly glad handing officials, Obama turned up for a speech and left again) can we assume that he wasn't trying to pay off his cronies. Surely if he were looking to secure some baksheesh for his allies, he would have pur in a bit of commitment.Comment Posted By Drongo On 3.10.2009 @ 17:02
"Well, put yourself in Israel’s shoes. The President of Iran has said repeatedly that he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. He’s repeatedly denied that the Holocaust ever took place."
You're not a stupid man, you must know full well that he never said either of those things.
I'm not suggesting that he is anything other than an oppressive religious zealot, but there's no need to promote out and out lies.
I suppose "wiped out from the map" is not quite the same as "wiped off the earth" but only a blithering idiot would make a case that there's an important difference.
And please don't throw Juan Cole in my face. As numerous Farsi translators have pointed out, he is an ignoramus.
ed.Comment Posted By Drongo On 1.10.2009 @ 16:57
"And not recognizing that partisan hate can cloud someone’s judgment and make their analysis false is the sign of stupidity."
So, let me get this straight. Your opinion of Obama is worthless as you are a partisan hack, yes?
No, of course not. Your analysis stands or falls on the evidence. Bush was an obvious frat-boy waster who relied on kickbacks and connections from day one. That's my evidence, and you couldn't see it then because, wait for it, your views were clouded by your inability to get over your idealogical bias. A bias so strong that you couldn't see what you can now see so clearly.
On the other hand I have virtually no opinion of Obama except to say that he seems a pretty standard Democratic centrist of the weak variety. How's about that for an idealogical blinker...Comment Posted By Drongo On 15.09.2009 @ 12:18
"I would say that most 3rd graders would do a better job of evaluating Bush than you - at least they wouldn’t be so stupid to inject the emotion of hate into their analysis."
Ahh, you're so cute when you're cross. Like being savaged by a deflated balloon.Comment Posted By Drongo On 15.09.2009 @ 12:10
"(Note: Please do not crow in the comments “I told you so.” What - you expect me to listen to partisan lefties at the time? That’s unreasonable and you know it. Your verdict on Bush was reached looking through the prism of partisanship just as mine was. Just because the left was right about some of Bush’s shortcomings does not mean they had - or have today - a corner on truth when it comes to criticizing him. I would also add that their hate of the man - as virulent a hate directed against another politician I had not seen before, even against Clinton - disqualifies most on the left from making any rational judgment on Bush that a reasonable person could agree with.)"
Rough translation ;
Yeah, so you were right about the man and we were completely wrong.
That doesn't mean that your opinions are better founded than mine.
And hating someone who was so utterly corrupt, useless, murderous and generally ignorant of the people that he was supposed to be serving is wholly unreasonable.
Your analysis of Bush is so poisoned by hate that you can't see how truly laughable it is. You're just flinging shit against the wall, trying to sound like you know what you're talking about.
Murderous? Prove it moron. You can't because you would have to have special insight into the man's soul - something only partisan haters who unthinkingly throw out juvenile cat calls believe they have. In fact, your idiotic, over the top, exaggerated criticisms make my point quite well, don't you think? Everything with you is knee jerk - as predictable as night follows day. Don't you get tired of being such partisan, clueless git?
I would say that most 3rd graders would do a better job of evaluating Bush than you - at least they wouldn't be so stupid to inject the emotion of hate into their analysis.
ed.Comment Posted By Drongo On 15.09.2009 @ 10:47
Out of interest, do you also get banned for;
1) Claiming that Obama is a Muslim?
2) Claiming that he is a Communist?Comment Posted By Drongo On 22.07.2009 @ 12:53