Comments on politics, the culture, economics, and sports by Paul Tuns. I am editor-in-chief of "The Interim," Canada's life and family newspaper, and author of "Jean Chretien: A Legacy of Scandal" (2004) and "The Dauphin: The Truth about Justin Trudeau" (2015). I am some combination of conservative/libertarian, standing athwart history yelling "bullshit!" You can follow me on Twitter (@ptuns).

 
ToN author on Calgary radio tonight































Tyranny of Nice co-author Kathy Shaidle will be a guest on Rob Breakenridge's program on 770 CHQR at 9:05 pm EST.

The book was officially released as an e-book today and the paperback ships next week. You can order it here.

Kathy has a post on why to buy electronic (instant gratification).
posted by Paul Tuns at 4:45 PM

 
Stock prices go up and down -- not really news

Its the top story at FT.com. Good news: some stock prices rebounded. Bad news: it is on the hope that the bailout will be resurrected in some form. Investors love their socialism to make their investments (relatively) safe.

About stocks going up and down, Terrence Corcoran explains in the National Post:

"By narrowly voting against the Economic Emergency Stabalization Act, the House of Representatives appeared to have thrown the world's financial markets into deeper turmoil, with the Dow Jones Industrial ending the day down by 777 points, a lucky number but unfortunately the largest point and market-cap decline in history.

But it would be unwise to read too much into the Dow plunge, or to link it exclusively to the political circus in Washington. Stocks appeared to be heading lower no matter how Congress voted. Indeed, from the moment congressional leaders announced Sunday they had a deal, filled with anti-market schemes and regulation, stock prices began falling in Asia and Europe. Early yesterday, when it was expected the bailout would be approved, the Dow was down 500 points.

Bailout or no bailout, the stock markets were heading lower as financial markets continue to undergo massive asset revaluations. No matter what elaborate new rescue packages Congress, the Bush administration and the U.S. Federal Reserve bring to the party, the market is going to continue marking stock prices and other assets down until values reach realistic levels.

This is not, nor can it be, the beginning of the end of the U.S. or world financial system. It's simply how the financial market works, how it should work. And it is working, whatever the games being played out in Washington and whatever their belief that governments can resolve the crisis."

It's how it works and how it should work.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:06 AM

 
The Sun sets










It is a sad, sad day. The New York Sun, my favourite newspaper ceases publication today. Gone are its sobering, balanced, centre-right editorials; its in-depth coverage of the United Nations; its coverage of human rights abuses and activists in Cuba and Iran; its high brow arts section that included daily book reviews and some of the best jazz writing; its unparalleled sports coverage with the best baseball, football and tennis pundits around.

The paper was intelligent and hard-hitting, it was insightful and informative. Its arts reviewers took both ideas and art seriously, and their sports writers never became cheerleaders for the home team. Mark Steyn said what made the National Post such a great paper in the beginning was not its ideological slant but liveliness of its writing. Ditto for the Sun. I would give up reading every other daily if I could keep reading the New York Sun. But that is not an option.

There is no other paper like it (the National Post when it began a decade ago comes close) partly because it is more like a magazine of opinion than a daily newspaper. It knew what it was and was about. Journalism is better for having had it around for more than six years and worse for having it disappear from the scene. The industry needs not only conservative voices but interesting voices, voices that can hit the high notes when they sing. That was the Sun.

But a newspaper, unless it is the New York Observer, needs to make money to survive. (Most opinion magazines do not make money, relying on wealthy owners or donors to keep them afloat or the generosity of foundations and endowments.) But being capitalists, the people at the Sun wanted their enterprise to be profitable, not merely noble -- and there is nothing dishonourable in that. Indeed, it is part of their nobility. Seth Lipsky explains the decision to cease publication:

"It is my duty to report today that Ira Stoll and I and our partners have concluded that the Sun will cease publication. Our last number will be the issue dated September 30, the first day of Rosh Hashanah. I want you to know that Ira and I, and our partners, explored every possible way to avoid having to cease publication.

We have spoken with every individual who seemed to be a prospective partner, and everywhere we were received with courtesy and respect. I tend to be an optimist and held out hope for a favorable outcome as late as mid-afternoon today. But among other problems that we faced was the fact that this month, not to mention this week, has been one of the worst in a century in which to be trying to raise capital, and in the end we were out not only of money but time.

So we are at this sad moment. It is sad for any newspaper to go out of publication, and it is particularly sad for one that is as loved as much as all of us here love The New York Sun and the readers we have won in our six-and-a-half years of publication. But I want you to know that the decision to close the paper has not been an acrimonious one. It is a logical decision following a hard-headed assessment of our chances of meeting our goal of profitable publication in the near future.

This was always a risk, and all the greater is the heroism of our financial backers. Even at the end they were offering millions of dollars if we could find the partners we needed. I don't mind saying to you, as I have to them, that I very much regret — I will always regret — that we were not able to return to them the capital that they invested in us. Yet we have not heard a single regret from any of them on this head, which underscores the fact that it was not only for the possibility of profit that they invested in this newspaper. They invested also for other ideals, as well."

Read the whole thing. This last thing.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:11 AM

 
AGS revisited

Carolina Panthers 24, Atlanta Falcons 9: I said Panthers would cover the seven points. QB Jake Delhomme had a good game: 20/29 passing, 294 yards, 2 TDs.

Cleveland Browns 20, Cincinatti Bengals 12: I thought Cincy would not only win but beat the 3.5 spread. Cleveland won by getting 17 fourth quarter points. Bengals QB Ryan Fitzpatrick, in his fourth start and eighth game in four seasons, threw three interceptions.

Jacksonville Jaguars 30, Houston Texans 27: Jax needed overtime for the victory. I thought they would beat the 7.5 point spread, but it was a back-and-forth game all day.

Kansas City Chiefs 33, Denver Broncos 19: I said pretty confidently: "Broncos beat the 9 1/2 point spread." Oops.

New Orleans Saints 31, San Francisco 49ers 17: The Saints win and cover the spread (4.5). Brees has another great game: 23/35 passing, 363 yards 3 TDS. Deuce McAllister had a better running game than Reggie Bush (73 yards on 20 carries compared to 31 yards on 10 carries).

New York Jets 56, Arizona Cardinals 35: I thought the Cards would upset because the Jets shouldn't be picked until Favre is allowed to be Favre. Favre set a personal best with 6 TD passes. The Cards gave up seven turnovers. Sobering ending when Anquan Boldin was hit in the head in the final half minute and had to be carted off the field. Moving moment: both teams kneeling around the hurt player, holding hands and praying.

Tampa Bay Bucaneers 30, Green Bay Packers 21: I thought the Packers would pull off the 'upset'. Both starting QBs had three interceptions; Aaron Rodgers may have separated his shoulder and his team was ahead 21-20 when he left in the fourth.

Tennessee Titans 30, Minnesota Vikings 17: Titans did better than beat the three-point spread to go 4-0 with the best point differential in the NFL.

San Diego Chargers 28, Oakland Raider 18: I predicted the Chargers would cover the 7.5-point spread. Raiders blew a 15-0 first half lead. Bolts RB LaDainian Tomlinson had a great game, his first 100 yard (106, actually) game of the year.

Buffalo Bills 31, St. Louis Rams 14: At half-time, the Rams looked like they were in this game, in fact leading the Bills 14-6. Third consecutive come-from-behind victory for the Bills. I correctly predicted the Bills wouldn't have any trouble covering the eight-point spread -- but it didn't look that way until the fourth quarter.

Washington Redskins 26, Dallas Cowboys 24: I was totally wrong to say: "Dallas will win and should beat the 11-point spread." Dallas never seemed to be in the game, perhaps because they had possession for only 21:51 minutes. TE Jason Witten had a good game for Dallas (7 receptions for 90 yards and a TD) and Tony Romo threw for 300 yards, but Dallas is best when they use all their weapons and their running game had only 44 yards -- 11 by WR Terrell Owens and seven from Romo. Rookie RB Felix Jones didn't touch the ball on offense all day. Their game was too one dimensional. More importantly, everything came together for the Skins -- their running and passing game, their offense and defense were all very good. QB Jason Campbell looked more than competent: 20/31, 231 yards, 2 TDs. There was only one turnover all game (by Dallas).

Chicago Bears 24, Philadelphia Eagles 20: Oddsmakers had Philly by 3, I had them by 11. We were both wrong. Bears QB Kyle Orton was impressive in the first half with 3 TD passes, but had a more typical second half.

Pittsburgh Steelers 23, Baltimore Ravens 20 OT: I said: "Ravens don't score much and Pittsburgh probably has enough to squeeze out a narrow (a field goal) victory. But I don't seem them beating the 6.5 point spread." The Steelers stunk it up in the first half with Big Ben getting booed by the hometown fans and going Pittsburgh going into second half down 13-3. Rookie Ravens QB Joe Flacco had his first TD pass of the season (three games). The Steelers, who had scored just six points in their previous nine quarters, got 14 points in 15 seconds in the third quarter. The rivalry between the two meant this was an exciting, phyisical game but the officials kept the game under control. Not a dull moment, huge bonus that the Steelers won it to make it 3-1 on the season.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:20 AM

 
The great P.J. O'Rourke has cancer

And writes humorously about it:

"I believe in God. God created the world. Obviously pain had to be included in God's plan. Otherwise we'd never learn that our actions have consequences. Our cave-person ancestors, finding fire warm, would conclude that curling up to sleep in the middle of the flames would be even warmer. Cave bears would dine on roast ancestor, and we'd never get any bad news and pain because we wouldn't be here.

But God, Sir, in Your manner of teaching us about life's consequential nature, isn't death a bit ... um ... extreme, pedagogically speaking? I know the lesson that we're studying is difficult. But dying is more homework than I was counting on. Also, it kind of messes up my vacation planning. Can we talk after class? Maybe if I did something for extra credit?"

And after the bargaining with God, there is this gem, comparing himself to Teddy Kennedy: "That he should have cancer of the brain, and I should have cancer of the ass ... well, I'll say a rosary for him and hope he has a laugh at me. After all, what would I do, ask God for a more dignified cancer? Pancreatic? Liver? Lung?"

And he's bang on regarding evolution, my Christian friends.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:18 PM

 
John Tory's future

In February, I predicted that John Tory, the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party leader, was likely to be the next head of the Toronto Blue Jays. Today, Paul Godfrey, the CEO and president of the Blue Jays, announced that he will step down at the end of 2008. I think Tory, a former CFL commissioner, is seeking to leave politics on his terms which are: 1) he claims he wasn't pushed out and 2) to a position that doesn't look like a demotion. The only problem is that Ted Rogers owns the Jays and the rumour is that he wasn't impressed by Tory's business acumen when he (Tory) was president and CEO of Rogers Media. Other rumours have Rogers and Tory as close friends. I guess we'll see.

Tory is going to leave politics by next Spring, and the Blue Jays job is going to be open. My other predictions for where Tory might end up, such as something with the Conference Board of Canada or the United Way are other possibilities but with no obvious job for him. Another job that might become open later this year is president and CEO of the Toronto Port Authority if Lisa Raitt beats Garth Turner in Halton on October 14.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:59 PM

 
Half of Congress acted heroically today

"If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you."
-- Rudyard Kipling

Today the House of Representatives voted 228-205 to defeat the bipartisan collusion against taxpayers and the free market (aka, the bailout). A total of 95 Democrats and 133 Republicans voted to defeat the Hank Paulson plan to have taxpayers prop up poorly managed firms. Sure, some of those Democrats are opposed to the plan for left-wing reasons, but their motivations matter little to me; the important thing is that the bailout was defeated.

The stock market reacted swiftly to the news -- the NYSE was down 777 and the TSE fell 840. But the stock market goes up and it goes down. I'm with Tyler Cowen: "My personal, oversimplified rule of thumb is that as long as trading continues The End of the World has yet to come."

Andrew McCarthy has an excellent, must-read post at The Corner, full of questions about the bailout. Read it all, but the conclusion is along the lines with my biggest concern:

"I understand the impulse to obsess over the pain and potential catastrophe staring us in the face, but what if the wages of drastically altering the capitalist system that has been our engine of freedom are decidedly worse?"

We don't know the answer to that and it is not worth risking the prosperity and innovation of free markets for a round of national (and international) psychotherapy, telling voters and investor 'now, now, everything will be fine'.

And then there is Plan B: the Federal Reserve will inject $630 billion into the global financial system which better addresses the problem of liquidity (money for loans) than does the bailout. There are still problems, but a better, more manageable set of problems than the Paulson plan created.
posted by Paul Tuns at 7:18 PM

 
Kathy Shaidle interviewed on Brass Balls Radio

Girl on the Right interviews Tyranny of Nice co-author Kathy Shaidle about the book.
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:56 PM

 
The best case for a John McCain presidency

Four more years of comedy sketches about Sarah Palin.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:22 AM

 
Tories in Toronto

I was thinking the Conservatives could win seats in Toronto ... until I read that Don Martin thinks the Tories can breach Fortress Toronto. Never mind that the ridings Martin mentions -- Brampton West, Newmarket, Oshawa, Thornhill, and Mississauga (which ones, he doesn't say) -- are in the GTA, not the city core. The only 416 riding Martin names, Parkdale-High Park, is between the NDP and Liberals, with the Conservatives a non-factor.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:26 AM

 
Shocking news: the foreign policy establishment agrees!

The Washington Post review of America and the World: Conversations on the Future of American Foreign Policy by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft finds it strange that on major foreign policy issues, the Democrat and Republican agree. Reviewer Moisés Naím (of Foreign Policy magazine) says:

"Scowcroft is one of the Republican Party's elder statesmen in the foreign policy arena, while Brzezinski plays a similar role for the Democrats.

Given the bitterness of partisan debates about foreign policy, now exacerbated by a tight race for the presidency, one might expect Brzezinski and Scowcroft to disagree vehemently about the challenges America faces abroad, the decisions that have shaped the nation's current travails and what the next president should do. Instead, they seem to see eye to eye on nearly every major foreign policy issue facing the United States."

Part of that is because prior to the first half of the George W. Bush administration, most individuals picked for senior positions in state and defense departments were foreign policy insiders. But it also speaks to the fact that before 9/11, on the big foreign policy questions, Democrats were sane and there wasn't a lot of difference between the two parties' elites on how America should conduct itself beyond its borders. That has not been true over the past six or seven years.
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:51 PM

 
'Washington politicians collude against taxpayers'

That is the truthful headline that should have run in place of "Lawmakers Reach Accord on Huge Financial Rescue" at WashingtonPost.com.
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:47 PM

 
What I'm reading

1. Fred S. Singer's interview (I don't know from when) on PBS on global warming.

2. "Bush's Legacy: Small Ball After All?" by Jonathan Rauch in the National Journal.

3. "The 2008 Corruption Perceptions Index" from Transparency International.

4. "Is the Court Any Longer Constrained by the Constitution?" by Roger Pilon in the just-released Cato Supreme Court Review 2007-2008.

5. "Deterring State Sponsorship of Nuclear Terrorism," a Council for Foreign Relations report by Michael A. Levi.
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:33 PM

 
Earmarks -- politically potent non-economic issue

John McCain doesn't know economics and during the presidential debate Friday night he implied that the current financial turmoil is somehow related to the federal fiscal deficit. They are not the same thing and I'm not sure McCain knows that. More importantly, McCain seems to think that the battle against earmarks will solve the fiscal mess. But 2008 earmarks totalled $16.9 billion while the federal government spent a total of $2880.5 billion; the deficit is estimated to be $250 billion to $410 billion. So, at worse, earmarks represent 7% of the deficit and just 6/10ths of 1% of overall spending. The problem is not earmarks, it's spending. Mark Thoma illustrates why earmarks don't matter as an economic issue with this handy pie chart:




















Whether or not earmarks matter from a fiscal point of view, they matter politically. Voters find them wasteful and often are used for the political advantage of the Congressmen who secure the earmarks so they are a sign of semi-corruption. McCain is onto to something politically popular and he no doubt is honestly indignant about the Congressional culture of earmarking, but his concern about wasteful government spending betrays an ignorance about economic issues that would be embarrassing -- if only his opponent, the pundits or the public were economically literate enough to exploit it.
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:15 PM

 
More thoughts on the bailouts

Steven Landsburg at The Atlantic Monthly:

"That's one reason I feel squeamish about the official pronouncements we've been getting. They tell us bank failures will make it hard to borrow but never that bank failures will make it hard to lend. But every borrower is paired with a lender, so it's odd to state the problem so asymmetrically. This makes me suspect that the official pronouncers have not entirely thought this thing through...

But surely in the vast global economy, it should be possible to find someone capable of introducing a lender to a borrower. (Note that I'm not talking about going to foreign lenders, though that's another option. I'm just talking about the same American borrower and American lender who would have found each other through Bear Stearns finding each other through Barclays instead.)

In other words, I'm not sure these big Wall Street banks are really necessary, and I'm not sure we'd miss them much if they were gone."

Up to a point, I think this is Landsburg being Landsburg. Many of the new popular economists work so hard at being iconoclastic. But Landsburg does raise a point that is being ignored (matching lenders to donors and vice versa) and asking a question that is never raised (do we really need these giant Wall Street banks). I don't know the answer. And considering their silence on the issue, perhaps neither do the bailout brothers, Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke.

I don't share Greg Mankiw's trust in Bernanke, although he has a point about the Federal Reserve chairman having a lot more knowledge and a lot more knowledgeable people around him than do his critics. But here's the problem: I don't trust Bernanke to have the most important information -- the answer to the question posed by Richard Epstein in Forbes:

"Greed is a constant of human nature. Financial meltdowns are not a constant of economic political life. It takes, therefore, an understanding of the overall incentive structure to explain why selfish economic behavior produces great progress on some occasions and financial ruination on others."

Three last thoughts.

The economic problems America and the world face, with huge companies facing bankruptcy, are not to be sneezed at. But I still prefer to do nothing and let the market sort these things out because I have zero confidence that the solutions will be any better than letting the large companies collapse and die. The catharsis that such turmoil might cause could be very good in the long run.

The problem is not the lack of regulation but the lack of the right regulators. We are going to need Super Regulators who know everything and are still willing to work for a government wage rather than in the private sector. This is what David Brooks was getting at last week in the New York Times: "We’re going to need regulators who can anticipate what the next Wall Street business model is going to look like, and how the next crisis will be different than the current one. We’re going to need squads of low-paid regulators who can stay ahead of the highly paid bankers, auditors and analysts who pace this industry (and who themselves failed to anticipate this turmoil)." I don't think such persons exists.

A political solution, we are told, should be bipartisan. Another word for bipartisanship is collusion.
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:48 AM

 
Any given Sunday, Week Four










Atlanta Falcons at Carolina Panthers: The Falcons are 2-1, but have had an easy schedule. The Panthers look like a team that could win the NFC South and with the right draw, advance far into the playoffs. Until the Falcons prove they can beat quality teams, you gotta believe the Panthers cover the seven-points. I like the running game of the Panthers with Jonathan Stewart and rookie Jeff Otah; Jake Delhomme is proving himself a pretty decent QB.

Cleveland Browns at Cincinatti Bengals: The battle of 0-3 Ohio teams, with avoidance of the AFC North cellar being the prize. Browns have scored just 26 points this season. QB Derek Anderson is going to be the starter again, for some reason. I like QB Carson Palmer to have a great game for the Bengals and that will depend on Chard Ocho Cinco breaking out of his slump (eight catches for 88 yards and 0 TDs). Cincy wins and should beat the 3.5 spread.

Houston Texans at Jacksonville Jaguars: When will Houston bench QB Matt Schaub. He has one TD pass in two games, five picks and a terrible 50.3 passer rating. He has been sacked eight times and now he faces the swarming defense of the Jags. Houston is not looking like the sleeper many people predicted. QB David Garrard calls a smart game and he has the dynamic running duo of Maurice Jones-Drew and Fred Taylor, but the Jax O-line, while not 100% healthy, is coming together. Sure, the Jags may be 1-2 and their one victory was a narrow one, but they are ready for a big game and they should run right past the Texans and perhaps even blow the game open with a pick or two. I'll take them to beat the 7 1/2 spread.

Denver Broncos at Kansas City Chiefs: With Tom Brady out for the season, Jay Cutler of the Broncos is making a great case for being the best QB this year. A fantastic set of receivers (Brandon Marshall and Eddie Royal) certainly helps. The Broncos play terrible defense, especially against the pass. But that won't matter against the Chiefs, who can't settle on a starting QB. Broncos beat the 9 1/2 point spread.

San Francisco 49ers at New Orleans Saints: If Denver's Cutler isn't the best QB this year, that's because Drew Brees of the Saints is. He has passed for 980 yards in three games, thrown five TDs and has a 103.9 passer rating. The Saints have a potent offense and no defense, so the only question would seem to be can the Niners outscore the Saints as the Denver Broncos did last week. Probably not. I'm not sold on game caller J.T. Campbell quite yet. The Saints win and cover the spread (4.5) because RB Reggie Bush has a breakout game and Brees, protected by his offensive line, finds his targets.

Arizona Cardinals at New York Jets: When will Brett Favre perform his superhuman heroics? Better be soon and facing the Cards at home might be the advantage Favre needs, except that Arizona is 2-1 and playing better than most people figured they would. Kurt Warner, another veteran (aging) QB, is having a great year. Should be a close game but no one would be surprised if either team went on a tear to hand their opponents a lop-sided loss. Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin have now combined for 540 receiving yards in three games for the Cards -— the best duo in the NFL this season. Until Favre is allowed to Favre, Jets' opponents are the smart pick. Jets are favoured by one, but the Cards pull off the 'upset'.

Green Bay Packers at Tampa Bay Bucaneers: Griese has done well since replacing Jeff Garcia. Aaron Rodgers, the loss against Dallas last Sunday notwithstanding, has done well since replacing Brett Favre. Everyone is excited about Griese, but he won't throw 67 passes again. The Bucs defense might contain Rodgers. The Packers are missing more pieces, this week it is CB Al Harris, who only hopes to miss a month after rupturing his spleen last week. The Bucs are favoured by one. I think the team whose QB dominates early wins. My gut says Rodgers will have the kind of game he had in weeks one and two, and the Packers pull off the 'upset'.

Minnesota Vikings at Tennessee Titans: These two teams are considered very similar: both are adept at the running game and preventing the running game. Both are starting their 'backup' QBs. Titans' Kerry Collins is better than Vikings' Gus Frerotte. Vikings RB Adrian Peterson is the best player on the field, but the Titans have the best defense in the NFL (29 points in three games). That said, the Titans' opponents have been relatively weak so far this year. and should have little trouble stopping the Vikings. Titans beat the three-point spread.

San Diego Chargers at Oakland Raiders: The Bolts are back on track and looking pumped. The Raiders are the Raiders. Darren McFadden might run a gazillion yards but he won't run as many yards as Philip Rivers throws. The Chargers defense is getting more aggressive (finally) in the absence of LB Shawne Merriman. Then there's always LT, who is getting closer to 100% every week. Chargers cover the 7.5 point spread and extend their winning streak over their state rival to 10.

Buffalo Bills at St. Louis Rams: This will be the battle of Trents. Marc Bulger threw two TDs in three games for the Rams. Now Trent Green, the 38-year-old backup, gets a turn. Can't do any worse. Everything else with the Rams is terrible, too. They have scored just 29 points (tied for second worst) and allowed 116 (worst in the NFL). The Bills are truly impressive. Last week, when the offense struggled against the Raiders, the defense limited Oakland to field goals, keeping the Bills in the game until QB Trent Edwards and his crew got their act together. This week, the Bills won't have any trouble covering the spread (eight points). Or maybe the Bills aren't for real, requiring fourth-quarter comebacks (17 fourth quarter points last week against Oakland, 10 fourth quarter points two weeks ago in Jacksonville) for two of their three wins. Here's the thing: good teams figure out how to win. Buffalo is a good team. (Did I just say that?)

Washington Redskins at Dallas Cowboys: The 'Skins have been much better since their awful opening game against the Giants and QB Jason Campbell hasn't thrown an interception in any of the three games. Still, the Cowboys are the best in the business right now, with too many offensive weapons, an incredible offensive line and a pretty solid defense. Washington has won only one of their past 12 games at Irving Stadium. Dallas will win and should beat the 11-point spread.

Philadelphia Eagles at Chicago Bears: The Bears have been in every game thus far. The Eagles look good enough to make it the Super Bowl. But they'll miss RB Brian Westbrook. Donovan McNabb has played as great as he ever has in the NFL, the Eagles defense is solid, and the Bears have few offensive weapons. You might even feel sorry for Bears QB Kyle Norton facing the blitzing defense of Philadelphia's Jim Johnson. Oddsmakers say the Eagles by three, but I have Philly by 14.

Baltimore Ravens at Pittsburgh Steelers: Last year, the Ravens had a very good defense; this year, they're better. The Steelers have problems: a defense that isn't as good as it once was, RB Willie Parker is out with an injury, their offensive line doesn't protect their QB and their QB is hurting. Big Ben's shoulder will become a bigger problem as the season continues with the hits and sacks he's taking. The presence of Rashard Mendenhall makes the loss of Parker less of an issue. Ravens don't score much and Pittsburgh probably has enough to squeeze out a narrow (a field goal) victory. But I don't seem them beating the 6.5 point spread.

Byes:

New York Giants -- They probably wish they could keep going. They are 3-0 and confident enough to suspend WR Plaxico Burress for two weeks (one game).

Miami Dolphins -- Basking in their trampling of the Pats last week.

New England Patriots -- Figuring out what went wrong against the Fins last week.

Indianapolis Colts -- They are 1-2 and re-grouping. The time off so the less-than-100% Peyton Manning can rest will only help.

Seattle Seahawks -- Also, 1-2, they're going to try to figure out how to turn things around. Unfortunately for them they return to face the red-hot Giants in New York.

Detroit Lions -- They fire president Matt Millen after starting the season 0-3 because apparently the 31-81 record since 2001 was insufficient data. Perhaps Millen's replacement will realize they need to rebuild and develop a plan for doing so. Defense might be a place to start: they are 31st, giving up 113 points in three games.
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:41 AM

 
How quaint

Patrick Deneen has a suggestion for John McCain, a speech to the American people in time of this economic turbulence:

"However, we must also be willing to consider our own participation in this crisis. We have become a nation of debtors and spenders, and no nation — no republic — has long persisted where appetite replaces self-governance. My friends, when our nation called me to serve as a young man, I did not hesitate to heed that call, and I bear the scars and, yes, the medals of one who sacrificed much for his nation. Today we need a renewal of a spirit of devotion to a cause greater than ourselves — a devotion to the health of our nation, vitality that is built on the bedrock of the decencies and virtues of our citizens...

I promise to you today, my fellow Americans, that I if I have the honor and privilege of serving as your next President, I will make it my foremost task to endeavor to restore the esteemed place of these virtues of self-sacrifice and commitment to a greater good than ourselves by means of example, encouragement, and, yes, legislation that will reward savings and not spending, conservation and not waste, and a promise to future generations to leave the our nation at least as good if not better than we found it."

And American will tell McCain to fuck off. Apparently Professor Deneen thinks politics is about leadership rather than pandership; voters want their anxieties addressed, not told that they must sacrifice. Deneen is a loser -- and McCain would be, too, if he followed Deneen's advice.
posted by Paul Tuns at 5:11 PM

 
Who made the impolitic statement

The Conservative Party has generally been grumpy about social conservatives who go off message; the people at the top of the party are often trying to keep the old Reform MPs in line. (The media, too, paints them as cranks not to be trusted with power.) But the latest 'gaffe' (off-message comment) is from a Red Tory who served as a Progressive Conservative MP when Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister: Lee Richardson. He said immigrants are more prone to committing crime.

His point is debatable, although it is impolitic to make it. I just wanted to note that more often than not, it isn't the social conservatives or old Reformers who are embarrassing the party.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:16 PM

 
Me in The Western Standard

I've written a column for The Western Standard on the unfairness of the human rights commissions, demonstrating why (as David Warren famously said) the process is the punishment.
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:31 PM

 
Elizabeth May: not ready for prime time

The Toronto Star reports:

"May urged Canadians to do all they can to throw Prime Minister Stephen Harper out of office, including strongly suggesting they shouldn't vote Green if another candidate has a better chance at defeating a Conservative.

'We are too close to the edge of a global apocalypse,' May said in an interview. 'We have got to grab the opportunities we have. And, clearly, the contribution Canadians can make to a global solution is to get rid of Stephen Harper.'

May insists she's not calling for strategic voting because that leads people to simply vote Liberal. She wants Canadians to examine their riding and figure out how best to keep the Tories from winning.

'I won't say, "You've got to vote Green if you believe in our policies." I'll say, "Here's our policies, figure out what you need to do because, frankly, the Green party has to put progress (on climate change) and principle above short-term power".'"

So the leader of the Green Party is encouraging people to vote for the candidate in each riding most likely to defeat the Conservative candidate. In how many ridings will that candidate be carrying the Green Party banner? Maybe two or three. The only way to read her advice is to understand that she is encouraging people to vote for parties other than the Greens in 99% of all ridings.

Elizabeth May isn't calling this 'strategic voting' (although the Star's headline is) and it certainly isn't strategic for her to appear to advocate voting Liberal or NDP rather than Green.

It is also proof that she doesn't belong in the leaders' debate, where, no doubt, she will be Stephane Dion's tag-team partner.

Hacks and Wonks says the same thing, concluding:

"[J]just some more food for thought for those wondering why I refuse to cede much ground to the Greens in the campaign. Show me you're serious first."
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:13 PM

 
Shaidle on the HRCs,
with some thoughts on the Conservatives thrown

Kathy Shaidle has a column at The Western Standard on how she doesn't hold much hope for a political solution to reining in the human rights commissions. I share her doubts, but should be clear that cultural shift alone is a precursor to the necessary political change. I don't think you can simply ignore the HRCs, as Kathy suggests, because they are not going to ignore you.

Anyway, as an aside she says:

"I only vote Conservative because I prefer their particular brand of baloney (and find the Liberal’s stale olive loaf particularly unappetizing). But it is still baloney."

So here's a suggestion for a campaign ad for the Harper Tories: "Voter for us: we are the least repugnant brand of baloney." That is essentially my take on conservative parties everywhere. But, I'm becoming less tolerant of the baloney than I used to be. Sure the Conservatives are better than the Liberals, but what are they doing about human rights commissions or protecting the unborn or making the state significantly smaller?
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:45 AM

 
Betting on America's increasing socialism

Intrade: "US Congress to approve a government bailout of banks on/before 30 Sep 2008." Latest price: $84 -- or roughly an 84% chance of such a bailout.
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:02 AM

 
Everything is bullshit

Robin Hanson at Overcoming Bias has a list of thoughts worth pondering:

Food isn't about Nutrition
Clothes aren't about Comfort
Bedrooms aren't about Sleep
Marriage isn't about Romance
Talk isn't about Info
Laughter isn't about Jokes
Charity isn't about Helping
Church isn't about God
Art isn't about Insight
Medicine isn't about Health
Consulting isn't about Advice
School isn't about Learning
Research isn't about Progress
Politics isn't about Policy

In the post linked to above, he considers why politics isn't about policy.

He says:

"High school students are easily engaged to elect class presidents, even though they have little idea what if any policies a class president might influence. Instead such elections are usually described as "popularity contests." That is, theses elections are about which school social factions are to have higher social status. If a jock wins, jocks have higher status. If your girlfriend's brother wins, you have higher status, etc. And the fact that you have a vote says that others should take you into account when forming coalitions - you are somebody.

Civics teachers talk as if politics is about policy, that politics is our system for choosing policies to deal with common problems. But as Tyler Cowen suggests, real politics seems to be more about who will be our leaders, and what coalitions will rise or fall in status as a result. Election media coverage focuses on characterizing the candidates themselves - their personalities, styles, friends, beliefs, etc. You might say this is because character is a cheap clue to the policies candidates would adopt, but I don't buy it.

The obvious interpretation seems more believable - as with high school class presidents, we care about policies mainly as clues to candidate character and affiliations. And to the extend we consider policies not tied to particular candidates, we mainly care about how policies will effect which kinds of people will be respected how much.

For example, we want nationalized medicine so poor sick folks will feel cared for, military actions so foreigners will treat us with respect, business deregulation as a sign of respect for hardworking businessfolk, official gay marriage as a sign we accept gays, and so on."

This helps explain why nearly all punditry is wrong.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:56 AM

 
Billions for automakers

Once you start handing out billions to corporations, its hard to stop. Rick Newman at U.S. News & World Report reports that the House of Representatives voted a $25 billion assistance package for the big three automakers and their suppliers. When it is just $25 billion, hardly anyone notices anymore. Here's the key sentence from Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan), one of the bill's sponsors: "It seemed like a lot when we first started pushing this ... Suddenly, it seems so small." It's bigger than the 1980 bailout of Chrysler -- and there will be more, as the Big Three plan to return to Congress with their hat in hand next year..
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:15 PM

 
Perspective



















There is a lot of baseball punditry noting that former Yankees skipper Joe Torre is in the playoffs with the Los Angeles Dodgers this year while the Bronx Bombers have missed the playoffs for the first time in 14 years. (See for example, this mlb.com story.)

For the record, the Yanks are 86-71 and in third in the American League East. Torre's Dodgers are winning the National League West at 82-75. In other words, the Yankees would be one win away from clinching the NL West (and be just one game out of the Wild Card if they were in either other NL division). And the Yankees have a tougher schedule (Tampa, Boston & Toronto 18 times each, plus six against the New York Mets).

These are not excuses. I am simply pointing out that while the Yankees aren't in the playoffs, they are still the better team.
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:35 PM

 
Can we stop talk about giving 0.7% of GDP in aid

The New York Times huffs and puffs in an editorial:

"Aid from the world’s developed countries fell by almost 13 percent between 2005 and 2007 — to under $104 billion, after inflation. The aggregate aid budget of the most developed nations amounts to 0.28 percent of their gross national income, woefully below the target of 0.7 percent agreed to by world leaders in 2002.

Only Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Denmark meet the target. Canada’s overseas aid amounts to 0.28 percent of its income. Japan’s is 0.17 percent. The United States, shamefully, is at the bottom of the list, spending 0.16 percent of its income on development assistance."

As I mentioned often before the issue of aid is less about helping those in the developing world than about helping Western politicians get good press and having Western publics feel good about their generosity. For too long, the media has let the pols and the public get away with this and we hardly ever hear about how short we are in delivering on our promises. Thankfully, the hungry and the homeless of what used to be called the Third World don't read our governments' press releases or the North American broadsheets that cover them; it would give false hope.

As an aside, I don't understand giving any percentage of GDP to this or that cause. When I was part of model UNs in my youth, there would be resolutions requiring 1% of GNP (we used Gross National Product back then) for AIDS treatment and 0.5% of GNP to a disarmament fund and 3% to an anti-hunger campaign and 0.6% to protect rainforests and ... you get the point. There is not an endless amount of GDP to be given out. Nor is GDP a bank account out of which money can be withdrawn; it is the sum of (recorded) economic activity and much of that money is in the hands of private interests, not the state. The 0.7% of GDP for foreign aid is a goal, but an arbitrary one. The West needs to drop the silly number (Lester Pearson's invention, by the way) and the 'development community' needs to get past benchmarks for giving and set priorities for problem-solving. A good start would be the Copenhagen Consensus which looks for the best (most effecient) way to spend $50 billion.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:26 AM

 
What a retard

CBC reports:

"A leading HIV/AIDS researcher is accusing the Harper government of 'genocide' for allegedly ignoring scientific evidence supporting Vancouver's controversial supervised drug injection site.

Dr. Julio Montaner, president of the International AIDS Society, accused the Conservatives of neglecting the needs of drug addicts and endangering their lives during a news conference Monday morning, held to mark the fifth anniversary of the opening of the Downtown Eastside facility called Insite.

'When you neglect purposely a percentage of the population that can be defined on the basis of a particular characteristic, that's genocide. And I will tell you that is exactly what they are doing,' Montaner said."

If you read far enough down in the story, or have a memory for such things, the Tories have twice extended funding of the pilot project -- a project which the federal Liberals permitted for three years beginning in 2003 with an exemption of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and some temporary funding.

And despite what an advocate for InSite might say, the scientific evidence on safe injection sites are mixed. Or are safe injection site skeptics guilty of genocide, too?
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:26 AM

 
New Interim publishing book































The book is called The Tyranny of Nice: How Canada crushes freedom in the name of human rights. The website is here. One of the co-authors, Kathy Shaidle, posts about it, here. Mark Steyn wrote the introduction. It will be available next week by ebook and traditional paperback.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:54 PM

 
AGS revisited

Washington Redskins 24, Arizona Cardinals 17: I thought the Cards what beat the 3-point spread. Both the oddmakers and myself got it wrong.

Minnesota Vikings 20, Carolina Panthers 10: I thought it would go back and forth but the Panthers would eke out the victory. Panthers blew a 10-0 lead. I was totally wrong.

New York Giants 26, Cincinatti Bengals 23 (OT): Giants needed overtime to win at home. I said the Giants easily by 14. Bengals surprised everyone, especially the Giants.

Tennessee Titans 31, Houston Texans 12: The line was Titans by 4.5. I said Titans by 10. Their defense is great. Texans QB Matt Schaub was not. (Titans have allowed just 29 points in three games.)

Atlanta Falcons 38, Kansas City Chiefs 14: Called this one right, sort of (Falcans by 4). RB Michael Turner had a great game: 23 carries for 104 yards and 3 TDs.

Miami Dolphins 38, New England Patriots 13: Who saw that one? That's not all being without Tom Brady. Brady doesn't play defense.

Buffalo Bills 24, Oakland Raiders 23: Bills didn't beat the nine-pint spread. Needed a last second field goal to win. Raiders coach Land Kiffin should be canned for not using his time outs to stop the clock and have a chance to score a kick return that never happened because time ran out.

Tampa Bay Bucaneers 27, Chicago Bears 24 (OT): Correctly predicted they wouldn't beat the nine-point spread. The Bucs needed an overtime field goal to win after overcoming a 24-10 fourth quarter deficit.

San Francisco 49ers 31, Detroit Lions 13: I'm not sure what happened to my prediction when I posted on Saturday (it isn't there). I would have had the Niners winning and I would have said the reason was the Lions defense. Or lack of it. The San Fran was never behind.

Denver Broncos 34, New Orleans Saints 32: I said both teams can score and neither can defend. I was right to say the Broncos would win but wrong to say they cover the 4 1/2 point spread. Consider this: Saints QB Drew Brees successfully completed 39 of 48 passes for 421 yard, but had only one TD pass in part due to inability of the team to do short passes. Saints' kicker Martin Gramatica also missed two field goals. If one of them scored ...

Seattle Seahawks 37, St. Louis Rams 13: I was wrong when I said: "Seattle wins the game and would normally be a safe bet to beat the 9-point spread, but not this week."

Jacksonville Jaguars 23, Indianapolis Colts 21: I was wrong to say that Indy clears the five-point spread. Jax won on a field goal with four seconds left.

Baltimore Ravens 21, Cleveland Browns 10: I said: "It would be tempting to say this is the weekend that the Browns get their act together, but there is little reason to believe that the hapless QB Derek Anderson will beat the Ravens defense ... Baltimore wins a low scoring affair." The Ravens scored 21 points in the third quarter. I predicted that the Derek Anderson era will be done in Cleveland in the next week or so and he made a strong case for doing it sooner rather than later: 14 passes in 37 attempts for just 125 yards; three interceptions.

Philadelphia Eagles 15, Pittsburgh Steelers 6: Both backups got time in this game and Byron Leftwich had a great drive at the end after replacing the injured Big Ben in the closing minutes of the fourth quarter. Eagles RB Brian Westbrook left the game early, too. Not sure why the Steelers went for it on the fourth down with half a minute left when a field goal and recovered short kick was their most likely to victory. I predicted Eagles by three, but it was a strange game in which the nine point difference didn't capture how poorly the Steelers played. The offensive line just didn't show up and the Eagles blitz put enormous pressure on Ben Roethlisberger, including eight sacks.

Dallas Cowboys 27, Green Bay Packers 16: I taped this and haven't watched it yet. So all I know is that I got the team right but the spread wrong (3). Aaron Rodgers performed well against the cover-2 defense of the Vikings and Lions but probably wasn't any good against the Cowboys' 3-4 defense as his 1 TD pass.

San Diego Chargers 48, New York Jets 29: I said that the Bolts would win but the nine-point spread was too much. Whoops. An exciting game with the feel of an playoff elimination for the Chargers. Brett Favre didn't help his cause with two second quarter interceptions (and almost two others).
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:52 AM

 
A winning election issue

The Conservatives will allow young offenders over the age of 14 who are convicted of murder, manslaughter or rape to be named. Whether or not such a policy is a wise one, my guess is that the voting public will like this stance. The policy will be paired with rehabilitation programs for youth convicted of crimes.

Meanwhile Jack Layton, risking his upsurge in the polls, says he is open to getting into bed with Stephane Dion's Liberals to oust the Tories from power.
posted by Paul Tuns at 7:38 PM

 
It's a sad day































Yankee Stadium will see its last baseball game today. Read Tom Verducci's Sports Illustrated cover story in this week's issue, written from the perspective of the House that Ruth Built.

I'll be watching the Yankees close it out tonight against the Baltimore Orioles with a tear in my eye. I understand it is time to move on; Yankee Stadium doesn't have the amenities that a modern ballpark needs. To be honest, the Stadium is old, its seats are shabby. I am not opposed to the new stadium and I am even excited about the Bronx Bombers' move across the street. But that doesn't make tonight any less emotional. Yet, I'm with Yogi Berra who says, "I hate to see it go. It will always be in my heart."
posted by Paul Tuns at 7:42 PM

 
Great election analysis,
Or, its not over 'til its over

Jay Cost with his typically intelligent, insightful and sobering analysis of the U.S. election. I say sobering because of comments like this:

"We see remarkable stability. Contrary to what one might think if one's only source for information was the political class - there has not been a lot of movement. The movement we have seen seems to have been pretty orderly - with McCain solidifying his Republican base."

In campaign coverage by the media and bloggers, in the comments by the pundits and strategists, every small move -- every announcement, every poll, every tactical shift -- is over-analyzed and imbued with great significance.

It is far from over, says Cost, because the decisive demographic (true independents) haven't made up their mind; they are not even paying attention because unlike partisans, they are less interested in politics:

"We also see a group of undecided voters who have not yet made a choice. They will probably be decisive. In a race with only two salient candidates - the goal is to hit 50%-plus-one. Both McCain and Obama can still do that via the undecided voters, who are becoming the critical voting block...

My intuition is that this group is going to sort itself out late. I'd guess that they are the true independents, i.e. those without strong party attachments. [Many people say they are independent but they actually behave like partisans.] I'd also wager that they have not been paying a lot of attention yet. The debates might move them, but I wouldn't be surprised if these folks sort themselves out in late October."

This brings to mind the great Onion TV satire on the '430 crucial voting blocs' that will decide the presidential election: Dunkin Donuts independents, divorced zookeeper assistants, corduroy wearing homosexuals, farmhouse dwelling self-publishing mystery novelists, facebook masturbators and more. It is worth watching -- and watch it closely, including the ticker at the bottom of the fake news screen.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:28 AM

 
Once you start...

George F. Will in the Washington Post:

"The Financial Times, which is not normally droll, recently began a story: 'Tim Geithner is without doubt the most active investment banker on Wall Street these days.' He is president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The deals that he and other government officials have brokered, with the backing of government money, may be prudentially necessary because failures of certain financial institutions might congeal the flow of credit that must lubricate recovery. What, however, is the excuse for the corporate welfare for GM, Ford and Chrysler?"

As Will notes, "No one thinks that the failure of an auto manufacturer would pose systemic risk to the economy. Americans would just buy a different mix of cars."

Will concludes:

"In 'The Communist Manifesto,' Karl Marx marveled that, such is capitalism's dynamism, 'all that is solid melts into air.' Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch should not be the last to learn the truth of that."

If capitalism is to flourish, some capitalists must fail. And that doesn't mean turning them into dependents of the state.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:22 AM

 
Cool things on YouTube

1. Word Up by Willis. A great cover of Cameo's 1980s hit made famous when Hodges danced to it on CSI.

2. The best scene from the single greatest episode of television ever (Yes, Minister's 'Whiskey Priest'). See also, the next scene.

3. The science of taking a tennis ball to the groin, with slow motion replays, a graphic demonstrating the nervous system's reaction and measurements of the subject's heart rate.

4. Taking a soccer ball to the face. I can watch it ten times in a row and laugh every time.

5. Giraffes fighting.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:17 AM

 
Any given Sunday










Arizona Cardinals at Washington Redskins: The Cardinals are playing well and the 'Skins, despite their victory against the New Orleans Saints, are a mess. I predicted that Cards' QB Kurt Warner would have a bad season, but thus far he has been one of the best. Washington's defense (which isn't bad) is not going to stop Warner's great passing game and come between him and WRs Anquan Boldin and Larry Fitzgerald. Cards easily beat the three-point spread.

Carolina Panthers at Minnesota Vikings: Lots of people are souring on the Vikings; lots of people are taking notice of the Panthers. The Panthers are 2-0 without WR Steve Smith and look like potential NFC South champs. But with Smith returning, the strategy for Carolina changes. That might mean a different result, but not necessarily a better one. On the other hand, expect the Panthers to rally 'round Smith when he returns from his team-imposed two game suspension after assaulting a team-mate. Vikings DE Jared Allen needs to have a good game and the Vikings must put pressure on QB Jake Delhomme to prevent him from finding Smith. The Vikings are good at stopping the running game and should prevent the Panthers' backfield duo of DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart. The Vikings have announced that crap QB Tarvaris Jackson won't start, giving the nod to veteran Gus Frerotte, probably for the rest of the season. Should help. Can't be any worse. Still, I think the Panthers win by three in a close game that goes back and forth.

Cincinatti Bengals at New York Giants: I thought the Bengals would play more competitive football this year. I was wrong. I also thought the Giants' defense suffered too many casualties, retirements, etc... and would be a 500 team. Instead, led by DE Justin Tuck, they might even be better than they were last year. Eli Manning has been consistently good at QB over the first two games. Carson Palmer has been consistently atrocious: two games, 228 passing yards, no touchdowns, three interceptions and a passer rating of 37.1. The game won't ever be close. The Giants by (at least) 14.

Houston Texans at Tennessee Titans: The spread is the Titans by 4 1/2. The Titans have a great running game going led by RB Chris Johnson and a smoldering defense. The Texans have RB Ahman Green nursing an ankle injury and their starting QB, Matt Schaub, coming off a three-turnover week. Titans stay atop their division, going 3-0, and easily besting the spread. Titans by 10.

Kansas City Chiefs at Atlanta Falcons: There are only three teams in the NFL who have admitted they are rebuilding and two of them meet this week. One of them has to win and the oddsmakers have Atlanta by 4. No reason to doubt them. RB Michael Turner needs to perform somewhere between his club-record 220 yards in week one and last week's 42-yard game. Chiefs defense against the run is awful. KC haven't even decided on their starting QB, which always means trouble.

Miami Dolphins at New England Patriots: The rebuilding Dolphins against the Brady-less Patriots still is not a fair fight. The Patriots defense is a great and under-appreciated part of the Pats' game. Dolphins' RBs Rickly Williams and Ronnie Brown have yet to click. Pats QB Matt Cassel showed excellent poise against the Jets in New York last week. Playing at home and against the hapless fish is exactly what he needs to further build his -- and the Patriots' fans' -- confidence. I am not confident, however, thet they will beat the 13 point spread. Bill Belichick gives Cassel the green light to throw plenty against the Dolphins.

Oakland Raiders at Buffalo Bills: The Raiders are a mess despite their victory against the Chiefs in KC last week. The running game is dominant but everything else is comprehensively awful. All eyes are on the soap opera of whether Al Davis will can coach Lane Kiffin. The Bills look like a legit playoff contender with QB Trent Edwards maturing much more quickly than anyone expected. Raiders rookie QB JaMarcus Russell has struggled and the team looks ready to shut down the passing game. The Bills will respond by stacking the box to stop the running game. Bills will beat the nine-point spread. And Kiffin will be fired before their game against the Chargers in week four.

Tampa Bay Bucaneers at Chicago Bears: The Bucs are horrible on the road: 9-23 since 2004. The Bears have won five of their past seven home openers. The Bucs will go again with Brian Griese after his solid performance against the Falcons last week. The Bears still have Kyle Orton, a QB that simply can't pass for any serious distance. Yet, the Bears have gotten more out of their offense than many were expecting. The O-line has played well and rookie RB Matt Forte has been very good. The Bears will shut down the Bucs running game. The Bucs defense is very good and will shut down Orton completely. Bucs win but won't beat the nine-point spread.

New Orleans Saints at Denver Broncos: At the beginning of the season I would have predicted the Saints, but Broncs QB Jay Cutler has played phenomenonally. The Saints have not made the improvement their off-season moves indicated they would. QB Drew Brees has been great but the lackluster running game has made the Saints one dimensional at times. Both teams can score -- and neither can defend -- so it should be an exciting game with lots of lead changes. Right now, the Broncs are the better team and they are at home. Broncos win and they cover the 4 1/2 point spread.

St. Louis Rams at Seattle Seahawks: The Rams are bad but the 'Hawks have disappointed, going 0-2 to open the season. Injuries have been a big factor. The Rams rank dead last in both total offense and total defense. There is something wrong when a rookie TE (John Carlson) is one of the 'Hawks better offensive weapons. The are so desperate picked up a pair of WRs on Wednesday (trade and free agency) and they will help; the only question is whether they'll need time to mesh with QB Matt Hasselback. Seattle wins the game and would normally be a safe bet to beat the 9-point spread, but not this week.

Cleveland Browns at Baltimore Ravens: It would be tempting to say this is the weekend that the Browns get their act together, but there is little reason to believe that the hapless QB Derek Anderson will beat the Ravens defense. The Browns haven't scored (a total of 16 points in two games) because the only offensive weapon has been WR Kellen Winslow. RB Jamal Lewis hasn't really run yet and the Ravens running defense is among the best in the league. The Ravens have their own QB problem: rookie Joe Flacco barely made half of his passes (15 of 29) two weeks ago against Cincy. Baltimore wins a low scoring affair. Brady Quinn should be the starter QB for the Browns by week four or five.

Jacksonville Jaguars at Indianapolis Colts: Jax desperately needs a victory. The Colts desperately want to get their act together. The Colts will miss former defensive player of the year, Bob Sanders, who will be out of action for 4-6 weeks. The Jags haven't gotten much out of their RBs Fred Taylor and Maurice Jones-Drew. QB David Garrard threw three interceptions last week after having just three all last year. The Jags defense is pretty good at stopping opposing run games which will probably limit RB Joseph Addai. The difference maker is Colts QB Peyton Manning, who demonstrated last week against the Vikings that he can carry his team on his shoulders even when the other 21 players are completely outplayed for 48 minutes. Colts clear the five-point spread.

Pittsburgh Steelers at Philadelphia Eagles: Best game of the week. Big Ben is nursing a sore shoulder; the Eagles are nursing disappointment after their loss against Dallas Monday night. The Steelers passing game looked mediocre last Sunday in Cleveland and while some of that was the wind, Roethlisberger's bum shoulder might be partially at fault. Expect the Steelers to run -- RB Willie Parker has played phenomenonally in the two games Pittsburgh has played this year; he is an under-appreciated talent. Expect rookie RB Rashard Mendenhall to get more chances against the smaller Philly defensive line. QB Donovan McNabb had brilliant moments in his game against the Cowboys on MNF. RB Brian Westbrook is amazing, a versatile talent that can beat teams on his own. Pittsburgh has an under-rated defense. But they haven't won in the city of brotherly love since 1965. Philly is favoured by three. Sounds about right.

Dallas Cowboys at Green Bay Packers: Could be a prelude to the NFC championship game. Brett who? Aaron Rodgers have made Packers fans forget Brett Favre: 24/38, 328 yards, 3 TD passes against the Lions and 18/22, 178, 1 TD against the Vikings. But the Packers haven't played a defense as good as Dallas'. Tony Romo hasn't played to his potential, making serious mistakes against Philly on Monday night that almost cost the 'Boys the game. Both teams scored 40+ points last week, so there is the potential for a barn-burner. The Packers will miss RB Ryan Grant who has a hamstring injury, and might force Rodgers to his passing game more often than would be wise. SS Atari Bigby is also expected to miss the game with a hamstring injury. Those injuries could be the difference. But probably not. The Cowboys have four big weapons: WR Terrell Owens, TE Jason Witten, and RBs Marion Barber and Felix Jones. That is a lot of diverse ways to beat a team. Dallas is favoured by three. Sounds good.

New York Jets at San Diego Chargers: Three times in one sequence the Jets went with a running play within six yards of goal against the Patriots and not once did they score. What's wrong with the coaching? Why not trust Brett's arm? The Chargers are 0-2, both lost in the closing seconds of the game. They are battling injuries to what seems like everyone, and are missing perhaps their best offensive and best defensive players. That said, they should beat the Jets. Eric Mangini has been too conservative, especially with a QB like Favre. The Jets are throwing less this year than they did last year. The Chargers' defensive backs are talented and huge. They might prevent Favre from doing what he ought to be doing. The Jets defense hasn't come together as quickly as Mangini would like. With or without a healthy LaDainian Tomlinson, the Bolts are better, but beating the nine point spread seems far-fetched.
posted by Paul Tuns at 7:45 AM

 
Idiot

Is Stephane Dion serious? He is claiming that the media -- and not himself or his party -- had made the Green Shift a major part of the Liberal election platform. This can't add to his credibility. First, this just isn't credible. But even if it was, he would appear to be running away from the biggest idea introduced into Canadian politics since the 1988 free trade election, admitting it was (to some degree) a mistake.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:43 PM

 
The market loathes a vacuum

The Canadian Press reports that when Burnaby’s Moscrop Secondary School in B.C. banned junk food, the free market responded:

"[Frank] Somerford, [Mark] Stoklosa and 15-year-old Scott (WeeMan) Simpson headed to a big-box grocery store last week to load up on candy and chocolate bars, and started selling the contraband snacks from their lockers. When word reached school staff and they were booted from school property, they just set up shop across the street.

The teens have business cards using the company name Original Fresh and use Facebook to advertise their prices, which are about what students would pay elsewhere.

They even have a delivery service, so students can send a text message and have candy dropped off at their classrooms at no charge.

Business has been brisk: Sales for the first week topped $175, and they’re only getting busier.

'It’s like that desert, you know, the desert in the movies with that one gas station? We’re that one gas station,' says Somerford.

Junk food and sugar-filled soft drinks were banned from vending machines and stores in all of B.C.’s schools at the start of the year."
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:43 PM

 
Disgusting

Not very funny comedienne Sandra Bernhard says that Sarah Palin would be gang-raped by some black brothers if she ever ventured to New York City. Nice and classy.

The Washington Examiner doesn't mention the gang rape comment, but does review Bernhard's show positively, including this bizarre tidbit:

"The fascinating thing about 'Without You I’m Nothing' is although Bernhard uses as many four-letter words as other comedians do, she doesn’t do so for shock effect or to establish a lowbrow persona. Her profanity comes across as a shout to a passive, disengaged world."
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:11 AM

 
Harper takes with one hand and gives with another

Stephen Harper cut $45 million in arts and culture funding as prime minister but as the Conservative leader in an election campaign he promises $25 million in arts and culture funding for Quebec.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:03 AM

 
Robson on state-sanctioned campaign-time censorship of the media

John Robson, Canada's finest columnist, writes about Elections Canada's enforcement of a silly and obnoxious rule:

"Elections Canada, who on Sept. 9 e-mailed the press to remind us that the law imposes strict requirements, if we report on polls during an election, about what information we must divulge.

State agents pry from us such things as 'how many persons were contacted' and 'the survey's margin of error.' ...

As an attempt to prevent objectionable speech during an election this weird little restriction on what we can say (or, more exactly, what we cannot not say) is entirely feeble. We print journalists remain free to speculate as to what various parties' campaign strategies are and whether they're working without having to justify our claims in any way to the meddlers at Elections Canada. We can cite 'experts' without having to explain our choice of which experts we call. We can even declare that nobody understands how a given Tory policy would work but that it's 'crafty politics' without having to put any evidence on the table. But cite a poll and we must include statistical details or offend the truth police ...

[I]f I say Stéphane Dion is a Martian, the law lets you make up your own mind about the reliability of the claim. But if I tell you 68 per cent of Martians support the Liberal leader, I'm obliged to disclose how many little green men I talked to with how large a margin of error, lest you be hoodwinked into some harmful voting behaviour impossible to specify. It may sound silly rather than toxic. But once the censorship principle is conceded, it's hard to fight back if the application gets more obnoxious."
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:19 AM

 
Republicans aren't viewed as complete incompetent losers anymore

Because of the Democrats. Andrew Cline explains in TAS Online:

"On all of the major issues of the past two years, the Democrats chose to play political gotcha instead of actually govern. The public, it turns out, seems to have seen through the charade. It's kind of hard to convince Americans that you feel their pain when, for example, you are doing everything in your power to keep gas prices high through the election. By being Democrats first and public representatives second, Democrats have lost the enormous advantage in goodwill the Republicans handed them on a silver platter two years ago."

I think there is something more important, though. The reaction by coastal elites against the moose-hunting Sarah Palin helped, too; perhaps even more. Republicans win when the issue is the culture wars and the Democrats re-opened them by taking the Palin bait.

The GOP is not going to win Congress but they might have a Senate they can fillibuster with and they probably aren't going to lose 25 seats in the House. Earlier this year, it looked that bad. Not any more. Furthermore, John McCain has a fighting chance to win the White House, something I didn't think would happen until the past week or so. It's still an uphill battle, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him win 300 electoral votes, either.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:03 AM

 
Why we need never support 'conservative' politicians again

Economic historian Ron Chernow quoted in the New York Times:

"We have the irony of a free-market administration doing things that the most liberal Democratic administration would never have been doing in its wildest dreams."

The Times explains the scope of government interference in the economy: it has "stunned even European policy makers accustomed to government intervention."

I don't want to hear conservatives talk about anti-market Europe ever again; where are the denunciations of the People's Republic of America.

To top it off, one French lawmaker congratulated the United States (or is that the PRUSA) on their intervention, noting the world has entered "an era where we have much more regulation and where the public and the private sector will mix much more." Washington used to stand against this awful idea; today it leads.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:41 AM

 
CCCB says, first and foremost, protect human life

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has released Federal Election Guide 2008 and somewhat surprisingly the top agenda item is not protecting the environment or expanding the welfare state, but defending the sanctity of human life:

"Respect for the life and dignity of the human person

As people of faith, Catholics believe that life comes from God, and that human life from its very beginning is a priceless gift. Each human being, created in God’s image, has inestimable worth and inherent dignity. Since life is the most precious natural gift that can be received, one of the greatest responsibilities of a Catholic is to love life, respect it and protect it. The sacredness of the human person is at the heart of the Gospel. Christ shows that each person is worthy of being loved, simply by being him or herself, and not because of what he or she can do.

Catholics believe in the responsible use of freedom to promote human life and dignity at all stages, from conception to death, no matter the circumstances. Choosing life means:

• Protecting the right to life for even the smallest – the human embryo and the human fetus – who are members of the human family, and also offering assistance to pregnant women who are facing difficult situations;

• Defending and caring for people in all circumstances, beginning with the most vulnerable and the poorest;

• Supporting and being present to people with disabilities and those who are elderly, ill, poor or suffering;

• Respecting the life and dignity of those who are dying, and accompanying them even in their last moments;

• Protecting all persons from possible exploitation in the use of biomedical technologies;

• Promoting peace and ending violence as a way to resolve conflicts;

• Encouraging policies that help people balance their family and work responsibilities.

Do the political parties represented in the upcoming federal election propose policies in support of these choices for life?"

I was going to say this is great leadership from the Catholic bishops. Catholic voters have no excuse to shoving aside moral issues which are vitally more important than pocket book issues or other concerns. Yet, Catholics are seemingly given permission to do so by typical CCCB wishy-washiness, as the bishops say that "there is a legitimate range of political opinion, attitudes, convictions and orientations" within the Catholic community. Yes, but only up to a point. A Catholic voter cannot support a candidate who is not pro-life except to mitigate the evil of preventing the victory of a more pro-abortion candidate. The bishops should have made that clear; instead they have confused the issue by appearing to give license to the 'legitimate range' of opinion. Supporting abortion does not fall within that range.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:38 AM

 
And the economy is fixed

Or perhaps not. What a strange world. WaPo biz columnist Steven Pearlstein explains:

"Having pumped $100 billion into the banking system, and lent another $115 billion to rescue Bear Stearns and AIG, the Federal Reserve was forced to ask the Treasury yesterday to borrow some extra money to replenish its coffers. If there was any good news in that, it was that investors here and abroad are eager to help out, having decided that the only safe place to put their money is in U.S. government securities. Indeed, demand was so brisk at one point yesterday that, for an investor, the effective yield on a three-month Treasury bill was driven below zero, once the broker's fee was figured in."

Is the economy in such trouble that investors will buy Treasury bills with a below zero yield?
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:29 AM

 
The real hope-and-change candidate

Daniel Henninger at the Wall Street Journal writes:

"Once Mr. McCain picked Mrs. Palin as his running mate, he demoted "experience" and elevated a government "reform" message. It was the right thing to do. Presidential voters are ambivalent about Beltway-marinated senators like Mr. McCain and Joe Biden. John McCain's edge is his famous reputation as a reform maverick. So far, though, he is not casting his reform message in large enough terms.

John McCain should be playing up Palin's popularity and resume of reform, Wonder Land columnist Daniel Henninger tells Kelsey Hubbard. (Sept. 18)
Washington is arguably at its lowest ebb in the public mind since before World War II. Join that fact to Sarah Palin's personally gutsy and professionally strong reform credentials, and Mr. McCain has the chance to offer voters a reform presidency in historic terms."

Fixing Washington is a winning issue. John McCain needs to highlight his and his running mates' reformist credentials and ideas, and beat Barack Obama at his own game.

One such argument is the case for divided government. George Will explains in today's Washington Post:

"Divided government compels compromises that curb each party's excesses, especially both parties' proclivities for excessive spending when unconstrained by an institution controlled by the other party. William Niskanen, chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute, notes that in the past 50 years, 'government spending has increased an average of only 1.73 percent annually during periods of divided government. This number more than triples, to 5.26 percent, for periods of unified government'."
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:27 AM

 
35,000

New York Post reports that according to a forthcoming documentary Fidel Castro has had sex with 35,000 women. Here's the PopCruch.com report:

"Cuban dictator Fidel Castro has bedded approximately 35,000 women in his 82 years of life, according to an upcoming documentary.

A special security team would scout out Havana beaches each day recruiting hotties for El Presidente’s pleasure.

'He slept with at least two women a day for more than four decades - one for lunch and one for supper. Sometimes he even ordered one for breakfast,' an ex-Castro official, identified as 'Ramon,' tells filmmaker Ian Halperin. 'I don’t think he would have stayed on as long as he did if not for all the incredible women he had access to as president'."

It appears that any commitment to the cause of Marxism was cover for his real interest: bedding babes.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:50 PM

 
Stop recycling personal computers

From the New York Sun:

"It turns out recycling a used computer could be worse for the planet than just throwing it away.

That's the premise of a congressional hearing today, when congressmen are expected to hear that computers collected through recycling drives are often shipped overseas, where they are stripped for metal, exposing laborers and nearby residents to toxins.

Coinciding with the hearing, the Government Accountability Office will release a report today that is expected to criticize the Environmental Protection Agency's record of regulating the export of older model computer monitors and televisions, which contain significant amounts of lead from cathode ray tubes.

In China, India, and elsewhere there are local economies built around collecting the lead and other metals from the cathode ray tubes and circuit boards of discarded electronics from American homes, environmental groups say. Cables are burnt for the copper wiring inside.

The waste poses a particular danger to the workers salvaging the equipment."
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:25 AM

 
We don't keep our aid commitments

You can read about how short we come up in the Reality of Aid 2008 report on pages 279-283.

To be fair, the report's findings on the giving of aid criticizes most of the Western world's generosity. Elsewhere in the report, it is said that Belgium might have a 'hidden agenda' in changing the way its aid is distributed through different channels. This writes its own Stephen Harper joke. But seriously, and without denying that the West can do more, will those with a professional interest in third world development ever think there is enough. If every country gave 0.7 per cent of GDP, the complaint is that there were too many strings attached. Or something.

My point, however, is that Western politicians, especially Canadians, make aid promises and don't deliver. The prime minister of the day gets the great photo op and we as Canadians can feel great about 'doing something' for the wreteched people of Africa, but the fact is we don't do nearly as much as we believe we are.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:27 AM

 
TO pols substitute one problem for another

Earlier this week, it was reported that the city of Toronto is considering its options on the use of disposable cups at private companies. That is, you might pay a tax on the paper cups at Tim Hortons. Or you might have to pay a deposit and drop your cup off once you are done. Or you might not even be allowed to obtain a coffee in such a paper cup at all, with customers forced to carry a stainless steel or plastic coffee mug with them.

Let's ignore the economic ramifications (the coffee shops that would close down, the staff that would layed off, the lost tax revenues for cities) and the cost to freedom (the restrictions on private companies to offer products consumers want, the ability of a person to stop and get a coffee to go), even though these are usually my paramount concerns. They are important, even more important than the environment, but such issues fall of deaf ears at City Hall.

Last week at Slate, the Green Lantern said that while landfill is a major concern (polystyrene isn't biodegradable and most paper cups are not recycled), there are also environmental costs attached to cleaning mugs (water and energy use). There is also the energy required to produce each cup (ceramic mugs do not grow on trees) and to ship these products from overseas.

The point is that the environment, like the economy, is not a zero-sum game. There are repercussions for our choices. There are trade-offs. Fixing one problem will inevitably raise new issues -- even if politicians do not want to face them.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:04 AM

 
Are there legal impediments to the United States becoming a socialist country?

Apparently not. David Zaring at The Conglomerate explains and it is worth reading, but the short synopsis is this: legal precedent says the feds should not have bought AIG but that either settled expectations have changed or that emergencies are emergencies. Put another way, governments can do whatever the hell they want.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:56 AM

 
No economy to manager

William Watson in today's Montreal Gazette:

"Something you hear a lot in the current federal election campaign is that Canadians should vote for the party that can best 'manage the economy.'

'Manage the economy' is a speechwriter's conceit. A modern economy is a big, complex, interconnected system, a lot like the eco-sphere. Beware the politician who promises to 'manage' it.

What we need instead are politicians who pledge to do their very best not to screw up the economy. Usually, that means letting it be: Don't overtax it. Don't over-regulate it. Don't pick pet sectors for promotion or, in the case of oil and banking, persecution."

The problem is that politicians lack the humility, and the public the understanding, to properly comprehend what the economy really is: millions of people making tens of millions of decisions: about where to invest, what to spend, where to live, how to save. Put the money in the bank or place it into a retirement or education fund, whether to drive or take public transit, to buy groceries or eat out, to travel or buy a new TV, stay in your old job or discover new opportunities. The economy is everthing. Everthing.

Borrowing from Leonard E. Read's brilliant short essay I, Pencil, Russell Roberts notes in his novel The Price of Everything that there is no czar to coordinate the creation of a pencil. Graphite is mined, trees are felled and the orange and green paint are manufactured without one person -- or the government -- directing it all. These raw materials come together in a factory where the pencil is assembled. Prices make this harmony -- a concert more beautiful than Bach -- possible. For more about this, read George F. Will's column in Newsweek this week. The point is that the pencil is a metaphor for all productive activity. There is no boss to manage it all. And yet, it still works.

Watson is right. While the government can do a lot to prevent the harmonious functioning of the market, it can do little to make it work better.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:19 AM

 
How the U.S. helps the world

In a word: capitalism.

Here is Robert Shapiro in the Fall issue of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas on globalization:

"Last year, 44 percent of U.S. exports went to developing markets and 50 percent of U.S. imports came from developing countries, while 28 percent of all U.S. foreign
direct investment is now located in the developing world. By contrast, Europe’s big-three economies—Britain, France, and Germany—lag far behind, with only 16 percent of their exports, 20 percent of their imports, and just 9 percent of their foreign direct investment involving developing nations. America’s much greater economic engagement in the world’s fastest-growing and lowest-cost countries exposes U.S. companies to greater and more varied competitive pressures that make them more efficient and innovative, and which in turn has supported the country’s stronger growth and productivity gains.

America’s leading position in globalization is evident in other ways. As the world’s sole superpower, the United States finds itself the guarantor of the sea and air lanes that carry most of the world’s oil and burgeoning trade. America is also the leading practitioner of the market-based arrangements that now dominate most countries, as well as the source of the reserve currency that most central banks need to stave off potential financial crises.

Beyond that, for some time the United States has been the main source of the new technologies and organizational innovations now driving productivity gains in other advanced countries and propelling modernization in many developing nations. Important innovations come from scores of countries; yet, Germany, France, Britain, Japan, and China have not produced counterparts to trail-blazers like Microsoft, Google, Wal-Mart, and Amazon, which reconfigured aspects of the global economic landscape. And with an economy three times larger than Japan’s, four times that of China or Germany, and five times that of France or Britain, Americans are the world’s consumers of last resort. U.S. imports — some $2.2 trillion in 2007 — help sustain jobs and profits in scores of countries, where many businesses and workers now identify their economic interests with the United States."

Of course, whether globalization helps those in the developing world is now almost an irrelevant point; trade is a fact (and Shapiro's essay is on dealing with this fact). But consider the magnitude of this fact:

"In 1990, 18.5 percent of everything produced in the world was exported across a border; last year, those levels reached 31.6 percent."
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:51 AM