Comments on politics, the culture, economics and religion by Paul Tuns -- in short, everything about the human endeavour from a non-hyphenated conservative perspective. I am Toronto-based writer and editor, whose articles, columns and reviews have appeared in more than 35 publications. I am editor-in-chief of The Interim, Canada's life and family newspaper, author of Jean Chretien: A Legacy of Scandal and a regular contributor to the book pages of the Halifax Herald.

 
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

 
No market failure in pharmaceutical drugs

Here is Daniel B. Klein in the just-released Fall edition of the Econ Watch Journal:

"According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), some 20 cents of every consumer dollar purchases products that come under the purview of the FDA. It regulates the safety of America’s food supply and cosmetics, the safety and effectiveness of pharmaceuticals and medical devices, and the claims that can be made about these and other products.

This article treats three FDA-administered restrictions:

* The permitting of new drugs and devices
* The control of manufacturer speech
* The imposition of prescription requirements.

This article works from a point of view holding that there is no market-failure rationale for these three interventions. The implications of that view are very much at odds with the common and official cultural attitudes about the matter. This article is a cultural analysis of the economic discourse on the issues. It explores how economists approach and discuss an enormous, entrenched apparatus that basic economic reasoning properly condemns as a bane to humanity."

Klein finds that economists have determined that there should be a liberalization of the FDA because there are very few market failures that can be adequately addressed by government regulation. That is market failures are relative -- relative to the shortcomings of government interference. In an interesting aside, Klein suggests that public well-being benefits more than Big Pharma's bottom line from liberalizing the rules surrounding prescription drugs.

Here is how Klein (correctly) sees a liberalized pharmaceutical market 'regulating' itself.

"Litigation weighs heavily on product safety and medical treatment. More importantly, people have demands for ex ante assurance of quality and safety, and those demands give rise to supplies. Reputation is but one form of assurance, and it suffers by product recalls ... Assurance and litigation do not work perfectly. But there is no theory contending that they err systematically AND that the longstanding policies constitute any plausible correction to such erring. A defense of government intervention must open with a rationale and proceed to a reasonably well-rounded case—a case that recognizes important costs and the imperfections of the alternative arrangement. As regards the longstanding policies, we do not find even a coherent opening rationale, much less a well-rounded case."

And a 'practical' suggestion (that has zero chance of being implemented, so I'm not sure how practical it is):

"Counterparts to the FDA function in other countries. The FDA could adopt a standing policy that drugs permitted in Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, etc. automatically become permitted in the US. Why doesn’t the FDA adopt such a policy? Is it because a drug that is safe and effective in Australia, Canada, or France may not be safe and effective in the United States? Of course not."
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:31 AM

 
AGS reviewed

New England Patriots 19, New York Jets 10: Predicted the Pats would win. They did and while it was often close, the Jets were unimpressive. The Pats deserved their win and the Jets deserved their loss.

Pittsburgh Steelers 10, Cleveland Browns 6: Predicted a 10-point win for Pittsburgh. Questionable clock management by Browns' coach Romeo Crennel at the end of the first half became a non-issue when Troy Polamalu intercepted Derek Anderson's throw into the end zone. The game was low-scoring because of the strong winds (30 mph with gusts of up to 60) that eliminated the passing game for half the game for each team.

Carolina Panthers 20, Chicago Bears 17: I said Carolina would win. But I was wrong about the margin (14 points). Panthers came back from a 17-3 deficit and stopped the Bears in the final two minutes on a fourth-and-1.

Buffalo Bills 20, Jacksonville Jaguars 16: Predicted Jax to edge out the Bills. Was the other way around. Because of the Jaguars' aggressiveness (Jack Del Rio calling fake field goals, fourth-down drives, etc...) it was an exciting game to watch. Bills look like they'll be tough to beat all year.

San Francisco 49ers 33, Seattle Seahawks 30: I said the 'Hawks would win narrowly. Got this one backwards, too.

Indianapolis Colts 18, Minnesota Vikings 15: Colts won it on the road on a 47-yard field goal by Adam Vinatieri in the closing seconds. I predicted the Colts would win if Peyton Manning got his game together. He went 26/42 with 311 yards and 1 passing TD. He also threw two interceptions.

New York Giants 41, St. Louis Rams 13: I said, "A win by less than two TDs for the Giants and it shouldn't even count."

Tampa Bay Bucaneersn 24, Atlanta Falcons 9: I said the Bucs would beat the 7-point spread. An easy prediction because one could easily manage Falcons QB Matt Ryan completing just 13 of 33 passes. Michael Turner can't run 220 yards every week.

Oakland Raiders 23, Kansas City Chiefs 8: I implied the Chiefs would win easily. Oops. This happens when two really bad teams face each other. I took the Chiefs because they were hosting.

Washington Redskins 29, New Orleans Saints 24: The game was back-and-forth. I said the Saints would win easily.

Green Bay Packers 48, Detroit Lions 25: I said the Packers by 17. The Packers retook the lead for good at 3:31 with a 19-yard run TD by Brandon Jackson. They had two interceptions that they ran back for TDs in the final three minutes. Packers QB Aaron Rodgers had a great game: 24/38, 328 yards, 3 TD passes.

Denver Broncos 39, San Diego Chargers 38: I said Broncs edge the Bolts. Great game and almost a great comeback. Fourth quarter was absolutely thrilling, coming from behind. Mike Shanahan went for the two-point conversion -- and the victory -- with about a half-minute left in the game. Wish I saw the Darren Sproles 103 yard kick return in the second.

Arizona Cardinals 31, Miami Dolphins 10: I said Cards by 7. I shouldn't have put much weight on the Fish's second half last week.

Tennessee Titans 24, Cincinatti Bengals 7: I predicted Titans by 10. Apparently I was too conservative

Baltimore Ravens at Houston Texans: Postponed.

Dallas Cowboys 41, Philadelphia Eagles 37: I predicted "Cowboys win, probably handily." Yeah, they won, but not handily. The really fun game to watch; the lead changed seven times with Philly scoring 24 second quarter points. Donovan McNabb had a great game, Tony Romo not so much so.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:02 AM

 
What I'm reading

1. I'm trying to finish a book I began early this summer: Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions by Dan Ariely.

2. "Making the Law Work for Everyone: Volume 1, Report of the Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor." The commission's co-chairs are Madeleine Albright and Hernando de Soto, which is almost as interesting a combination as the report is in itself.

3. "The Developing World Is Poorer Than We Thought, But No Less Successful in the
Fight against Poverty," a World Bank Working Policy Research Paper by Shaohua Chen and Martin Ravallion.

4. "Social justice, democracy and human rights: shaping a principles-based foreign policy," from the English left-leaning think tank Progress.

5. "Retro Identity Politics," by the always interesting Matt Bai in this past weekend's New York Times Sunday Magazine. Interesting but probably less true is Peter J. Boyer's New Yorker piece, "Party Faithful: Can the Democrats get a foothold on the religious vote?"
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:53 AM

 
Labour stuck with Old Brown

Earlier this week, Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh called for a leadership contest, a direct challenge to Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The Sunday Telegraph editorializes:

"The dissenters are right on one point: Gordon Brown's performance as Prime Minister has been poor. While it has been his misfortune to hold office at a time of global economic crisis, his own errors and apparent unease in the top job have served to undermine his authority.

But the Labour rebels have yet to answer a fundamental question: what is their alternative?"

But as Matthew D'ancona says in the same paper, this will be just another bad week in Brown's prime ministership and be part of the "slow process of attrition." The plotters will erode the PM's authority but they will not risk open rebellion. D'ancona says it is all part of a Scottish tragedy, but it appears more like farce.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:20 AM

 
This review almost sold a book

Gregory Cowles reviews The Genius: How Bill Walsh Reinvented Football and Created an NFL Dynasty by David Harris, and in the first half Cowles makes a strong case for Walsh (the coach of the San Francisco 49ers in the 1980s) as a subject worthy of serious consideration. He implies that Harris does the job. But click onto the second half and he lists a dispiriting list of shortcomings in The Genius. Unconvincingly and oddly Cowles concludes, "Harris may not go wide, but he goes deep when it counts, and that’s enough." I'm not sold -- on the review or the book.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:12 AM

 
Great quote

"It is through exchange that difference becomes a blessing, not a curse."

-- Jonathan Sacks, chief Rabbi of Great Britain, quoted at Marginal Revolution.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:07 AM

 
Any given Sunday

Predictions:

New England Patriots at New York Jets: The Tom Brady-less Patriots are not nearly as bad with Matt Cassel starting as many think. The New York Bretts want to win their home opener against their division rival and they are favoured by 1.5 points. While Brady is great and the QB is important, the reason the Patriots are so dominating is that they are a complete team. They should go 2-0 in the post-Brady era.

Pittsburgh Steelers at Cleveland Browns: The Steelers have beaten the Browns in 15 of their past 16 games, including nine in a row. The Browns defense sucks, the Pittsburgh offense rocks even with Big Ben's bum shoulder. The Steelers make it ten in a row, beating the Browns in Cleveland by 10 and putting to rest the skepticism of whether Pittsburgh has what it takes to win the AFC North -- and raising serious questions about what Cleveland's 10-6 2007 season portended for '08.

Chicago Bears at Carolina Panthers: One of these teams is going 2-0 after both upset AFC powerhouses last week. The Bears are favoured but Panthers QB Jake Delhomme is five times better than Kyle Orton and they'll beat the visitors by two TDs.

Buffalo Bills at Jacksonville Jaguars: Jax lost lask week to the Tennessee Titans when their running duo of Fred Taylor and Maurice Jones-Drew were limited to 31 rushing yards. Won't happen again. QB David Garrard had two passes intercepted (it had three all year last season). That won't happen again. It is a problem that the interior O-line is hurt. The Bills seem to have gotten their game together earlier than many football pundits predicted they would and will play extremely competitive for most of the season, but Jacksonville edges Buffalo.

Indianapolis Colts at Minnesota Vikings: The big question is whether Peyton Manning is still hurting or was just not ready after missing the pre-season due to his injury. The Colts lost because rookie RB Matt Forte had 123 yards on 23 carries; if the Indy D can't stop Forte, Adrian Peterson and Chester Taylor could really do some damage. Both teams, favourites to win their division and strong possibilities to make it to their conference finals, are both trying to avoid going 0-2. But such a start is not insurmountable: both the 2001 and 2008 Super Bowl champs (the Patriots and Giants, respectively) went 0-2 to start their seasons. If Manning gets his game together, the Colts should win, but if not the Vikings even out their record.

New York Giants at St. Louis Rams: The Giants are the defending Super Bowl champs who are coming off an extended rest after opening the season 10 days ago. The Rams are one of the worst teams in the NFL. A win by less than two TDs for the Giants and it shouldn't even count.

Atlanta Falcons at Tampa Bay Bucaneers: Could the Falcons go 2-0? Atlanta had a surprisingly strong offense (31 points) in their victory against the admittedly weak Detroit Lions. RB Michael Turner (one previous career start) ran 220 yards in what many are predicting a breakout year. Rookie QB Matt Ryan threw a 62-yard TD pass. But the Tampa Bay defense is much better than the Lions. TB is starting their backup QB, Brian Griese, but he catches a break because the Falcons defense is rebuilding. Bucs win and because of their superior defense they beat the seven-point spread.

Oakland Raiders at Kansas City Chiefs: The winner might avoid the divisional cellar at year's end. The Raiders were so dismal, the Monday Night game announcers were indignant for most of the fourth quarter. The Chiefs are bad but not as completely awful as the Raiders showed they were last week; they simply don't have their game together. Chiefs beat the spread -- no matter what it is.

New Orleans Saints at Washington Redskins: Drew Brees will miss receiver Marques Colston but the Redskins demonstrated against the Giants on opening day that they are in disarray. The Saints. Easily.

Green Bay Packers at Detroit Lions: The pressure is off Aaron Rogers. Look for him to give it to RB Ryan Grant (92 yards against the Vikings last week) to rack up a lot of yards against the porous Lions D-line. Packers by 17.

San Francisco 49ers at Seattle Seahawks: The Niners lost last week but had a surprising running game. 'Hawks are battling serious injuries including a pair of receivers that will limit QB Matt Hasselback's options. The aggressive Seahawks defense should limit the 49ers offense and come out with a narrow victory.

San Diego Chargers at Denver Broncos: The Broncos were impressive last week against Oakland (41-14) but the Raiders were comprehensively awful and your local high school team would have looked good. The Chargers lost a nail-biter against the Carolina Panthers. LB Shawne Merriman decided to have season-ending surgery and RB LaDainian Tomlinson and CB Antonio Cromartie are questionable with toe and hip injuries respectively. The Chargers might be too injured to pull out the victory they are slighty favoured for by the oddsmakers and Denver is at home: Broncs edge out the Chargers, ending San Diego's four game winning streak against Denver in which they have averaged more than 37 points.

Miami Dolphins at Arizona Cardinals: Chad Pennington had a great second half against the New York Jets last week; Kurt Warner had a great game against the SF 49ers. The Cardinals win by seven at home.

Tennessee Titans at Cincinatti Bengals: The Titans 'upset' the Jacksonville Jaguars by playing stellar defense and it will keep the Bengals game in check. Titans by 10.

Baltimore Ravens at Houston Texans: Postponed.

Philadelphia Eagles at Dallas Cowboys: Philly plays their last game in Irving Stadium. Both teams destroyed their opponents last week (the Eagles beat the St. Louis Rams by 35, the 'Boys beat the Cleveland Browns by 18). Cowboys QB Tony Romo was not pressured at all and should face a stronger challenge from the Eagles defense. However, the Eagles only play as well as QB Donovan McNabb. Cowboys win, probably handily.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:03 PM

 
Political predictions

Any prediction market would give you long odds on Gerry Nicholls' predictions for the Canadian election campaign, listed here in his Toronto Sun column yesterday. Here are my four favourite, all longshots:

* "Green Party leader Elizabeth May's campaign bus will get stuck in a melting glacier."

* "Taking a cue from the success of Godzilla movies, the Liberals will dub over Dion's voice during the English-language leadership debate."

* "Harper will suffer a panic attack when his aides tell him they can't find his 'hidden agenda'."

* "Justin Trudeau's election performance will win him praise from all parts of the country, but the country will be Cuba."
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:00 AM

 
September 11, seven years later

The New York Sun editorializes:

"At moments it might seem as if the memories fade as the time passes but then all of a sudden the date creeps up and there it is. On one level it now seems all so long ago: Before The New York Sun had even started publishing, back when Barack Obama was serving in the Illinois state senate and President Bush was in his first year of his first term in office. But then for all of those who were in this city that day or know someone who was killed in the attack, there are moments when it all comes back with complete clarity. This day is always one of them, notwithstanding the passage of time. And the stepped up security that accompanies both the anniversary and the presence today in our city of both Senators Obama and McCain is a reminder that the threat of another terrorist attack that shadows us to this day. Let the memory of how awful the last attack was remind of us the need to stand guard against another one. And to thank all those, from the New York Police Department and the National Guard to the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, who are keeping us safe."

A friend of mine says of the 9/11 terrorists that they turned airplanes into weapons of mass destruction. And how easily, as noted in the Daily Telegraph's editorial:

"Seven years on, and not least because of the way America bungled the post-Saddam development of Iraq, voices are being raised that the terrorist threat is really not so bad and that it is all being exaggerated for political reasons. As the US government prepares to move troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to confront a resurgent al-Qaeda threat, those voices will get louder.

As 9/11 showed, it does not take a lot of people, or a great deal of sophistication, to cause carnage on a devastating scale. The destruction of four aircraft, two of the world's iconic buildings and part of the Pentagon required fewer than 20 zealots, all prepared to kill themselves in the name of their religion, several months of flying lessons and some airline tickets. The terrorists did not even disguise their own identities and had conspired for months below the radar of western intelligence."

I am not sure what the line is between being responsibly vigilant and destroying liberty. I believe that giving up liberty for increased security is generally a bad idea, if not an impossibility. Yet, mustn't we do something? That the general public cares little about these question does not bode well for our future. More dangerous, though, is the West's refusal to see Islam for what it is: a promoter of grievances and justifer of lethal violence. Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but the so-called 'religion of peace' is an incubator of terrorism. We must comprehend these facts if we are to protect ourselves in the long run.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:17 AM

 
August Interim up

The August edition of the paper is now online. Most of what we reported and commented upon seems dated now, especially because the paper's coverage of the Morgentaler Order of Canada was in the August edition while the story itself broke at the very beginning of July (actually June 29). Such is the problem with editing a monthly newspaper. (We typically go to press the week before the month begins.)

Still, worth reading is the editorial, "The order of Canada" about not the civilian honour but the values of our society.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:18 AM

 
Toronto's forgotten buildings





















My friend Jonathan Castellino has a regular feature at BlogTO on Toronto's forgotten landmarks, with commentary and some spectacular photos, starting with the Canada Malting Company Plant. At the bottom is a flickr presentation of about two dozen photos, including from within the Malt Plant. If this is the kind of thing you find interesting, you'll like Jono's short essay and pics.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:05 AM

 
Interesting map

Toronto homicides. Wouldn't you like to colour code the map according to ethnic makeup or income levels. Also, click off the 2005 homicides (so you just have 2006-2008) and the pattern will be clearer because there are a number of areas in which murders occurred four years ago which have not had any since.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:04 AM

 
It is not when life begins, but when is life protectable

Yuval Levin at NRO on the silliness of the Democratic ticket's (erroneous) view that when life begins is a matter of theological definition rather than biology:

"[T]he question of when a new human life begins is not fundamentally a theological question but a biological question. After conception is concluded, a new biological organism exists that did not exist before — a member of our species in every way, alive and human. That is when the life of that human being starts. That life will proceed in one continuous path until death, whether that comes days later in a lab dish, months later in a clinic, or decades later in a nursing home surrounded by children and grandchildren. Human life has a straightforward scientific definition, and its beginning in biological terms is complicated only by questions about the process of conception itself. When conception is completed and a developing embryo exists, a life has begun.

That fact does not by itself necessarily settle the abortion or embryo research debates. After all this new human being is at first very small, for a little while does not resemble anyone we encounter in our daily life, and at first does not even feel pain or exhibit any but the simplest autonomic responses. The embryo and the fetus are different in some important physical respects from most of us. So the question is not when life begins, but whether every human life is equal.

For some people, this question of equality does have a theological component, for others it does not. But either way the question obviously has a political and legal component, and indeed America’s political tradition offers one answer to the question, written in the Declaration of Independence. We can disagree with the answer, but to do so we must take up the appropriate question: not when does life begin, but whether we are all created equal. Do all human beings share in some minimal equal humanity that entitles us to some minimal equal protections, like the protection from intentional killing, regardless of our age, our size, our capacities, abilities, and circumstances?

That’s not a question that answers itself. But it is the question at the heart of the abortion and embryo research debates, and Senators Obama and Biden are avoiding the question by insisting they lack an answer to the prior question — the question of the beginning of life — which they wrongly assert to be a matter of theology."

It is not like we live in the Dark Ages and have no idea about embryology. But as George Will has said for nearly four decades, the issue is not when life begins but when does human life become protected in law. That is a philosophical argument (which for many people is informed by religious viewpoints), but the biology itself is not a matter of religious dogma. So Barack Obama and Joe Biden, instead of being stupid, flunking elementary biology (a new human life begins when the human sperm fertilizes a human egg creating a new human being with a distinct DNA) are mere barbarians, deciding that some human beings are worthy of legal protection but others are not. You can decide if being an ignoramus is better than being a bigot.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:52 AM

 
On conservative vote-buying

Publius at GCH doesn't like the Conservative government's handout last week to an auto plant in Windsor, Ont. He says it is one thing to buy votes and another to do it in the same way Liberals do. If you have to buy votes, you do so the Conservative way:

"Mike Harris bought votes, but in a clever and conservative way: He Cut Taxes. This is how you're suppose to buy votes, you give people back what belongs to them anyway."

And if you can't sell tax cuts to the public, invest in infrastructure:

"Spend money on infrastructure. It's a government monopoly, and among the less pernicious usurpations of the private sector. Fixing a crumbling bridge or building a subway line is generally a good thing. Perhaps the subway line should not really be built, perhaps the bridge shouldn't have been built in the first place. Yet better our money spent on roads to nowhere than on so many other things, like free needle injection centers or golf courses in certain Quebec ridings. This is not conservative incrementalism, this is politics in its lowest and simplest form."
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:37 AM

 
Graphically presented
















That's Jessica Hagy, a few days ago. Hagy frequently posts her amusing graphs at Freakonomics.
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:29 AM

 
Layton channels Barack Obama

Jack Layton in his campaign kick-off speech:

"And so, in this election, voting for the New Democrats means:
Supporting a vision of hope and optimism,
Choosing change that moves us forward, not backward."
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:55 AM

 
First time in 16 years that Favre hasn't played in a Packers game

Adam Schefter at the NFL.com blog looks back at the last time the Green Bay Packers played sans Brett Favre on September 22, 1992:

* Fran Tarkenton held the NFL record for touchdown passes with 342; Dan Marino, at the time, had 269. [He has since been surpassed by Marino (420) and Favre (442).]

* Peyton Manning was a junior at Isidore Newman High School in New Orleans.

* Tom Brady was a sophomore at Junipero Serra H.S. in San Mateo, Cal.

* Aaron Rodgers [tonight's Packers' starting QB] was just over two months shy of his 9th birthday...

* The cost of gas was about $1.27 per gallon.

* Cal Ripken Jr. was 1,721 games into his MLB-record streak of 2,632 consecutive games played.

And the top grossing movie was Sneakers.

As an aside, the broadcasters mentioned Favre's name every 39.6 seconds -- or so it seemed. My eldest son and I have come up with an idea for the next Packers game on TV: the Brett Favre drinking. Every time Favre's name is uttered by one of the play-by-play announcers or colour commentators or half-time analysts, you take a drink. Guaranteed to be drunk by half-time.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:08 PM

 
A theme song for every MLB team

Chris Jaffe at HardBallTimes. Amusing and not overly cliched. For example, the Toronto Blue Jays:

"Toronto Blue Jays: 'Stuck in the Middle with You' by Stealers Wheel. In the last 10 years, they've had eight third-place finishes, a second-place finish, and a fifth-place finish. That's some impressive consistency. They've won 78-84 wins a half-dozen times. The Jays' idea of an extreme performance is to go 87-75. This year, they are an unexpectedly low fourth, but with their trademark slightly over .500 winning percentage."

Or the L.A. Dodgers:

"Los Angeles Dodgers: 'The Man Who Sold the World' by David Bowie. Sometimes, money only gets you so far. That's especially true if you let Ned Colletti determine how to spend it. They have Matt Kemp as a talented young center fielder, so they sign Juan Pierre and Andruw Jones. I guess you could slide two of them to corner slots, but then where do you put Andre Ethier?"

There are 28 more of them.
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:45 PM

 
Question of the day

Canadian election: bored yet? I am.

Check out Pete Vere's SooToday.com column on Canadian and U.S. election stuff. His idea for a more entertaining Canadian election: unleash Georgia bunnies during the leaders' debate.
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:36 PM

 
A bad day for capitalism

Yesterday, as the New York Times reported, the "federal government took over and backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, assuring a continued flow of credit through America’s wounded mortgage system." Sounds so benign, doesn't it? How about when it is worded this way? Arnold Kling: "We now have the latest plan. The real legacy of the Bush Administration may turn out to be Washington's invasion of financial markets." Kling continues:

"Five years from now, we could find ourselves with no exit strategy. My guess is that we'll be pretty much out of Iraq by then. But it would not surprise me to see Freddie and Fannie still in limbo. And who knows whether the Fed's portfolio, which took on some unusual assets with the Bear Stearns rescue, will look more or less exotic than it does today?"

Here's a longer version of Kling's idea on getting government out of the business of reducing mortgage credit risk.

Greg Mankiw identifies the central problem:

"I am saddened whenever any private profit-seeking enterprise gets bailed out, whether it is Chrysler, Long-term Capital Management, Bear Stearns, or the GSEs. Such bailouts sow the seeds of the next financial crisis by fostering expectations of future bailouts and encouraging excessive risk-taking. (And before anyone emails me that the GSE equity holders are not exactly getting a good deal here, let me point out that the debt holders are. In a capitalist system, you want those extending both debt and equity finance to bear the consequences of the risks they undertake. If the taxpayer is chipping in, someone is being insulated from risk.)"

Jim Rogers says, the United States is now more communist than Red China. That is hyperbole but at least China has a free market in housing. Why does U.S. socialism almost always seem to help the wealthy?
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:14 PM

 
Another theory down the drain

Mark Rice-Oxley in The Guardian:

"It's known as the McDonald's theory of war, but has nothing to do with hand-to-hand combat over a bacon and egg McMuffin. No country with a McDonald's outlet, the theory contends, has ever gone to war with another.

The logic is thus: countries with middle classes large enough to sustain a McDonald's have reached a level of prosperity and global integration that makes warmongering risky and unpalatable to its people.

The Russia-Georgia conflict has finally blown this theory out of the water.

Thomas Friedman, who invented the theory in 1996, said people in McDonald's countries "don't like to fight wars. They like to wait in line for burgers."

The Caucasus conflict shows it's quite possible to do both."
posted by Paul Tuns at 4:56 PM

 
No Asian future

So says Joshua Kurlantzick in the Washington Post:

"So much for the Asian century. The Thais are bickering with themselves, and when they're done doing that, they'll bicker with the Cambodians -- again. China may be Japan's biggest trading partner, but they hate each other anyway. Malaysia and Indonesia? Two countries divided by the same language.

I've spent a lot of time in Asia over the past decade, as an expat and a traveler. From where I stand, the place is a geopolitical mess. Hogtied by nationalism and narrow self-interest, the countries of the East won't be banding together to replace the West as the seat of global power -- at least not anytime soon."

Kurlantzick says that while elites seem to like the idea of integration within and between nations, there is a resurgent nationalism that threatens the economic dynamism and cultural progress that would lead east Asia to equal the United States and the EU as a global power.
posted by Paul Tuns at 4:42 PM

 
Are you better off?

That depend -- in what way? So says George F. Will in today's Washington Post. Two examples:

"Unfortunately, the phrase "better off" is generally understood as a reference to your salary, your bank balance, your IRA and the like. But wait. Are you better off being four years older? That depends.

If you are young, since 2004 you might have found romance, had children, learned to fly-fish and become a Tampa Bay Rays fan. In which case you emphatically are better off, even if since 2004 there has been only a 0.6 percent increase -- yes, increase -- in the median value of single-family homes.

If you are near 'the sear, the yellow leaf' of life, in the past four years your expected remaining years of life have declined. But that does not mean you cannot be better off.

Suppose in those years you read 'Middlemarch,' rediscovered Fred Astaire's movies, took up fly-fishing, saw Chartres and acquired grandchildren. Even if the value of your stock portfolio is down since 2004 (the Dow actually is up), are you not decidedly better off?"

I'm not sure whether reading George Eliot qualifies to making you better off. Perhaps reading Anthony Powell or Rudyard Kipling, but Eliot? Still, Will has a point. The larger point is that being better off cannot be captured purely -- or even primarily -- by financial considerations.
posted by Paul Tuns at 4:35 PM

 
Bill Safire on the GOP convention speeches

William Safire returns to the op-ed pages of the New York Times with an excellent and entertaining review of the speeches from the Republican convention. He ends by wondering if the GOP strategy to attack the media is a good idea:

"[I]s it smart politics to bash the news media?

Because Agnew, and later Nixon, ultimately were forced to resign, conventional wisdom now holds that their blast at “elitism” backfired; but it probably played a part in Nixon’s 49-state re-election landslide in 1972. By curtailing the “instant analysis” and having elected opposition leaders on TV to answer presidential addresses, the press back then took much of the punch out of the administration attack.

However, by slamming back furiously today, some of those mainstreaming or blogging in the news media just might be helping to make their critics’ point."

The whole column is worth reading, as is his column last week looking at Barack Obama's speech in Denver:

"A stern editor could have improved the 4,500-word acceptance by cutting a thousand words of populist boilerplate and partisan-pleasing shots that offend centrists. But the die was cast before the writing began. The pretension of the fake Grecian temple setting clashed with the high-decibel, rock-star format and overwhelmed the history implicit in the event. Ancient Greeks had a word for it: hubris."
posted by Paul Tuns at 4:19 PM

 
What I'm reading

1. The Price of Everything: A Parable of Possibility and Prosperity by Russell Roberts, a pro-free market novel that explains pricing and other economic ideas by a George Mason University economist whose podcasts can be heard at www.EconTalk.org and who blogs at Cafe Hayek.

2. "A Dynamic Model of Amniocentesis Choice," by Eduardo Fajnzylber, Joseph Hotz, and Seth Sanders. The paper is six years old, brought to my attention by Justin Wolfers at Freakonomics and noted that it is unsurprising that economists, not doctors are thinking about the costs and benefits (even in medical terms).

3. "Behavioural economics: is it such a big deal?" a debate between Pete Lunn and Tim Harford at The Prospect.

4. "How Obama Really Did It: The social-networking strategy that took an obscure senator to the doors of the White House," by David Talbot in the September/October M.I.T. Technology Review.

5. "How Obama Reconciles Dueling Views on Economy," by David Leonhardt in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine. James Pethokoukis at US News and World Report says its a bad econ plan and the NYTM article is bad economic journalism.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:25 PM

 
NFL predictions -- AFC

AFC East































New England Patriots (13-3)

Never mind their 0-4 pre-season record or their Super Bowl disappointment. Don Banks of SI.com calls the Patriots the gold standard and he is right. It is deep with talent and has the best coach (Bill Belichick) and quarterback (Tom Brady) in the game. Brady is banged up and the defense isn't quite as good as it was last year, but as long as Brady is healthy enough to play, the Pats are en route to their sixth consecutive division title. The Patriots are one of the two most complete teams in the NFL (along with the Indianapolis Colts) so even with CB Asante Samuel bolting for the Eagles, they are in good shape. Belichick usually doesn't start rookies but inside linebacker Jerod Mayo will probably have a starting job. The nucleus of the 16-0 team is still there: the offense led by Brady, WRs Randy Moss and Wes Welker, RBs Laurence Maroney and Kevin Faulk, and a defense that features LE Ty Warren, NT Vince Wilfork and RE Richard Seymour, along with OLB Mike Vrabel, ILB Tedy Bruschi and SS Rodney Harrison. The special teams are nothing special, but are hardly decisive when the rest of the roster is so dominating. They also acquired Raiders's RB LaMont Jordan as a short-yardage/third down weapon. Brady has so many targets that they will score plenty again in 2008 although they would be hard-pressed to match the 589 points they scored in '07. It isn't really fair that the team that went 16-0 in 2007 has an easier schedule in 2008 (387 opponents winning percentage). They will win comfortably -- as long as Brady is okay.


New York Jets (9-7 - Wild Card)

According to one advanced metric predictor, the addition of Brett Favre improves the average win total for the Jets from 7.2 to 7.6. That's what the stats say. Favre is very good at changing things up, finding the target and turning games around. He is fully capable of lifting a team on his shoulders and winning games they have little business winning. Receiver Laveranues Coles needs to get healthy fast. The presence of Favre should elevate the game of WR Jerricho Cotchery, who gives the QB a second quality target. WO David Clowney provides depth in the passing game. Favre wasn't the only pickup of the off-season; in fact he might not even be their biggest. The Jets signed over a hundred million dollars worth of free agents, led by former Pittsburgh left guard Alan Faneca, probably the most important addition to the team, filling a huge defensive hole. They traded for nose tackle Kris Jenkins to further improve the defense. And the team is hoping for good things from rookie OLB Vernon Gholston despite a terrible pre-season. Those could add up to a big improvement for a defense that allowed 355 points (19th overall) and ranked 29th against the passing game. The team is aided by a soft schedule (457 opponents' winning percentage) -- and, of course, Favre.


Buffalo Bills (7-9)

Don't believe the hype -- they are not as good as advertised and are a season away from contending for a wild card spot. Second-year QB Trent Edwards is unproven and the defense is improving but not quite there yet (they have a long way to go -- they finished 31st in yards allowed per game last year). While Edwards doesn't have a strong arm, he is a smart player and gets rid of the ball quickly, but until he builds up arm strength he will be limited in what he can accomplish and be a mere average QB. There is still a serious weakness at receiver after WR Lee Evans suffered a serious setback in 2007 (27 fewer catches and 443 less yards). He needs to return to his 2006 form. The powerfully built and quick RB Marshawn Lynch should continue develop nicely after a fine rookie season (1,115 yards and 7 TDs) and how much he improves could influence whether this team makes it to 500. The offensive line is solid and features LT Jason Peters, a truly elite player. There is a good coaching staff headed by Dick Jauron who employs a low-risk approach that emphasizes the running game. The Bill have incredible special teams, including excellent coverage and return and kicker Rian Lindell consistently places the ball within opposing team's 20-yard line. The Bills haven't made the playoffs since 1999, and they won't make it back quite yet. But they are definitely on the right trajectory even though they'll threepeat their 7-9 record.


Miami Dolphins (4-12)

When the Jets traded for Favre, Chad Pennington became superfluous in New York. He is an average QB but a big upgrade for the fish. Miami went and got Bill Parcels to help turn the team around (as vice president of the Dolphins) and he brought coaching staff from Dallas along with him. But regression to the mean will be responsible for much of the improvement; 1-15 (the lone victory was an overtime win against Baltimore in Miami) is pathetically awful but six of their first 12 losses were decided by three points, including a 3-0 loss in Pittsburgh. The Dolphins will have a better record, but don't expect much as they are definitely rebuilding.


AFC North































Pittsburgh Steelers (9-7)

A good team with the toughest schedule in the league -- their opponents average winning percentage in 2007 was 598 -- they will be hard-pressed to repeat their 10-6 record. Ben Roethlisberger is a great QB -- two perfect passer rating games last year, with a team record 32 TDs and 104.1 passer rating -- and is unlikely to be that good again. There are a lot of questions about the offensive line in front of him and there is something to be said that teams get sunk by struggling or inferior OLs, but I think it will be just good enough to limit the sacks and pressure to the point where Big Ben wins them games. And it might matter less for the Steelers as Big Ben is often as good in the scramble as he is in the pocket. That said, they'll miss G Alan Faneca who left via free agency to the Jets. Roethlisberger has lots of options: RB Willie Parker, who is thrilling but inconsistent, is joined by speedy Rashard Mendenhall for a dynamite running game, and the team has depth at receiver with WOs Santonio Holmes (who led all receivers with 18.1 yards per catch) and Hines Ward's and Nate Washington and Limas Sweed battling for No. 3 receiver. I watched kicker Jeff Reed practice over the summer when I was in Pittsburgh and he was amazing -- better than his 117 points, 23 for 25 stats indicate. He can get some serious distance (consistently nailing field goals from 45 yards). The defense is effective as long as the offense keeps them off the field because the blitzing style of defensive coordinator Dick LeBeau. Last year they finished first in overall defense (allowing about 59 fewer yards than average per game), second in points allowed and third in both passing and rushing defense. They might not be as dominating as they were in 2007 but they are still a big plus. Troy Polamalu is one of the most dynamic defensive players in the league. The team dropped steeply in Football Outsiders' DVOA ratings over the course of the 2007 season (which explains why they lost four of their final five games, including the playoff, beating only the lowly St. Louis Rams), but they are a talented team in a weakish division. They'll come out on top.


Cleveland Browns (8-8)

There is lots of excitement about the Browns because of their 10-6 record. But it was a mirage -- they beat teams with a 500 record only once all year and a pair of their wins came in overtime on field goals. Everyone is counting on second-year QB Derek Anderson to improve, but I'm dubious. I don't see the former third stringer as the leader of a division winner and it could be just a matter of time until 2006 first round pick Brady Quinn challenges him for the starter's job. Last year, Anderson threw 19 interceptions while completing just 56.5% of his passes -- despite being aided by a superior offensive line that included LG Eric Steinbach and LT Joe Thomas. The defense needs to get better; it was 30th in total defense and 27th against the rush. To improve against the running game, the Browns acquired a pair of defensive linemen: Corey Williams from the Green Bay Packers and Shaun Rogers from the Detroit Lions. But both are new to the Browns' 3-4 defense so how quickly they adapt will be key to the team's horrible (third worst) rushing defense. The secondary was weakened when they sent CB Leigh Bodden to acquire Rogers. The Browns could be better but end up with a worst record.


Cincinnati Bengals (7-9)

Carson Palmer is one of the three most under-estimated players in the league and one of the best QBs, but they need a go-to reciever for him. WRs Chad Johnson is now Chad Ocho Cinco (85) and he and T.J. Houshmandzadeh have been studs in the past but the drafting of three receivers might signal the Bengals are considering a different direction. The change of name means there are only two other Johnsons Palmer can depend upon: RB Rudi and FB Jeremi. Rudi Johnson halved his rushing yards due to injuries and will need to rebound. The defense is well below average (21st against the rush and 26th against the pass) with no sign of getting better. They are relying on second and third year cornerbacks and the players at that position normally don't mature into quality starters until their fourth year; if they are ready a bit earlier, the Bengals defense will be better than anticipated and they will more seriously challenge within the division. But that both Johnathan Joseph and Leon Hall would progress early is a long shot. The Bengals have made the playoffs just once in the past 17 years. Their futility continues.


Baltimore Ravens (5-11)

Their fabled fantastic defense is getting old, their offensive line is a mess and the QB situation is a mess with neither a clear starter or a starting-quality quarterback. The defense is susceptible to injuries and serious age-related regression -- according to Football Outsiders metric DVOA, the defense is already slipping and was not in the top five for only the second time since 1999. (Still, FO has the Ravens winning their division on the anticipated strength of their D.) The Ravens have the fourth most difficult schedule (551 opponents winning percentage) and their first six games are challenging but not the most dangerous part of the season: home games against division rivals Cincinnati and Cleveland, road trips to the increasingly decent Houston and and always tough Pittsburgh, then a trip to Tennessee and a home game against Indianapolis. It would not be surprising to see them go 1-5 or even 0-6. Perhaps even before then, coach John Harbaugh might decide to experiment to see which players he is moving into next season with and which are disposable. (In the off-season he said "You don't want to use the word 'rebuildiong' ...") They have not yet committed to rebuilding but the decision is probably nearer than many experts -- or Ravens fans -- are ready to admit. That could mean seeing more of first-round draft pick Joe Flacco, the future franchise QB. He has already won the starting job after veteran Kyle Boller suffered a shoulder injury. If the team isn't rebuilding by bye week, they face a second half that includes not only the Steelers, but Jacksonville and the NFC East (Dallas, Philadelphia, Giants) too. It will be a long year in Baltimore considering that every aspect of their offense is average or worse and their defense is not what it used to be.


AFC South































Indianapolis Colts (13-3)

There are skeptics out there who think the team is on the verge of its demise. I don't see it that way. They are still the cream of the crop in a great division. They have it all, so even a regression in one part of the game could be easily overcome. If you were to give a grade to each part of their game, there wouldn't be one below a B. Running back Joseph Addai has rushed more than 1000 yards in each of his first two seasons and the Colts have a plethora of choices behind him. Receiver Marvin Harrison returns from an injury that cost him 11 games, so there is a significant upgrade in their passing game. He is joined by the vastly under-rated Reggie Wayne and together they stretch out opposing defenses, making the middle of the field vulnerable to slot receiver Anthony Gonzalez (37 receptions) or TE Dallas Clark (58 receptions, 11 TDs). It is a potent offense and there is every reason to think they will finish in the top three in points scored (again). Combine that with a superior defense (they had the stingiest defense last year, allowing just 262 points), and one sees why even with their tough schedule (the second toughest, with a 594 opponents' winning average), they are poised to win the AFC South again.


Jacksonville Jaguars (10-6 - Wild Card)

The defense has improved, adding to one of the best offenses in the sport. QB David Garrard had a 103 passer rating -- more than 20 points higher than typical -- so even a slight regression to the 90s would still have him as a plus quarterback. Jax has a tough schedule (the toughest division in the NFL and they also face strong teams or average teams with great defense: Pittsburgh, Minnesota, Green Bay, Chicago and Baltimore). RBs Maurice Jones-Drew and Fred Taylor are top-flight, but the receivers are questionable and lacks speed. WR Reggie Williams needs to step it up, but is nowhere being a dependable option. The defense was merely average last year (ranked 12th) but they worked in the off-season to improve it by re-arranging the pieces and drafting a pair of defensive ends in the first two rounds which should improve the DL and signing DT Jimmy Kennedy and DB Drayton Florence provide a new look. Whether they are better or merely different, only time will tell. How much improved the defense is will make the difference between challenging for the division or capturing a wild card spot but Jacksonville is too good not to make the playoffs.


Tennessee Titans (9-7)

This is a pretty decent team but to seriously contend with Jacksonville and Indianapolis, third-year QB Vince Young needs to make a giant leap and become the playmaking star that he isn't anywhere near being. The Titans have no passing game of which to speak; last year Young threw 9 TD passes (and nearly twice as many interceptions - 17). The receivers doesn't have much speed and there is little depth. Rookie RB Chris Johnson has the potential to be a big playmaker soon and a superstar someday, assuming they decide soon to keep him as running back or make him a wide receiver. The strength of this team is defense and they are an above 500 record on D alone. The defensive line is amazing, in part because Albert Haynesworth (6'6", 320) is a behemoth who cannot be single blocked. A full season of MLB Ryan Fowler will help stop the running game and speedy outside linebackers David Thornton and Keith Bulluck are a great duo. Michael Griffin and Cortland Finnegan are tremendous in coverage. The Titans had the fifth best overall defense and they might be even better this year. Unfortunately their weak offense -- and the Colts and Jaguars -- stand in the way of a playoff berth.


Houston Texans (8-8)

There is a lot of talent on this team and there are a number of football pundits predicting that they will sneak into the playoffs. I don't think the Texans are quite ready to compete in this tough division. Respectability in the AFC South begins with a healthy starter quarterback (Matt Schaub) and wide receiver (Andre Johnson). If Johnson is healthy, he and Kevin Walter are very fast once they've caught the ball. The running game is unimpressive. There are a lot of young studs in the defense that could pan out -- but probably not until well into the season. Still, the key to challenging for a playoff spot is the development of DE Mario Williams, DT Amobi Okoye, CB Fred Bennett, and LB DeMeco Ryans. In the off-chance they all make the jump to the next level at the same time, the Texans will have a formidable defense. If not, they still won't have this defense thing figured out (24th overall in total defense, tied for 22nd for points allowed). The team is getting better and is likely to get better as the season progresses. But 2008 is not quite their time.


AFC West































San Diego Chargers (14-2)

The Chargers are an impressive 27-9 over the past two seasons and ready to take the next step: get past the New England Patriots in the post-season. Pro Bowl linebacker Shawne Merriman will try to play with two torn knee ligaments; he'll be gone soon enough but the team is deep enough and strong enough in other parts of their game that it probably doesn't matter. The defensive line is imposing and physical, the linebackers have speed and depth and the defensive backs feature last year's interception leader, Antonio Cromartie. The Chargers were fifth in points allowed. They were also fifth in points scored on the strength of LaDainian Tomlinson, who will contend for another rushing crown. Because of LT's dominance, the team focuses on the running game with rookie Jacob Hester expecting to back him up. QB Philip Rivers showed guts in the post-season loss to New England last year and he is likely to be more consistently good in '08 after a at-time rocky '07 (15 interceptions to go with his 21 TDs). If he is shaky, veteran Billy Volek represents the smallest drop-off from starter to backup among the contending teams. The mid-season acquisition of WR Chris Chambers coincided with an 8-2 run to finish the year; a full-season of Chambers, and his positive influence in challenging former No. 1 receiver Vincent Jackson, means the offense has lots of top-notch options. Antonio Gates is the best tight end in the game, making it difficult to double team Tomlinson. As if that were not enough, the Chargers have very good special teams: Darren Sproles is one of the best return men in the business, they have superb kick and punt coverage and punter Mike Scrifes' kicks hang like no one else's. The team has experience -- 20 of 22 starters return for the '08 campaign and their other two starters got plently of playing time in '07. They also have the second easiest schedule (opponents' winning percentage of 422 and facing just four 2007 playoff teams) means the Bolts can win enough to secure home field advantage throughout the AFC finals. And that should get them to the Super Bowl in Tampa on February 1st.


Denver Broncos (8-8)

The Broncos are 16-16 over the past two seasons and there is every reason to believe that they are destined for yet more 500 football. Many people are expecting QB Jay Cutler, entering his third season, to have a break out year, especially now that his diabetes has been diagnosed and (presumably) better managed. He will be hampered by the inexperience of the offensive line due to the retirement of LT Matt Lepsis and knee injury to center Tom Nalen. And he doesn't have a lot of dependable options in either the running or passing game. At 6'4" and 230 lbs, receiver Brandon Marshall is impossible to bring down. But there aren't other quality receivers so he will end up getting double teamed. The running game depended on rookie RB Selvin Young who is more a short-yardage/third down type. The RBs are a little on the small size. The Broncos ranked 21st in scoring despite a total offense that rated 11th. That might signal better times ahead, but we'll have to see. The defense lacks speed in their linebackers and their defensive backs don't cover very well, so it is no wonder they finished 28th in points allowed (409). That will probably get better. A slight improvement in the defense combined with a slightly better Cutler should be good enough for the Broncos to appear respectable on the strength of any easy schedule (445 opponents' winning percentages by virtue of facing division rivals Oakland and KC twice), but they are not good enough to earn the right to play into January.


Oakland Raiders (5-11)

Rookie RB Darren McFadden will be the most exciting player to watch this season, but he will be the only reason to watch the dreadful and scandal-plagued Raiders. QB JaMarcus Russell, who is still essentially a rookie, isn't ready to lead the team, and he has no receivers to pass to. They have assembled a receivers' corps that looks like the leftover spare parts from other teams. The team lives by the run and McFadden adds another element to that part of the game, relieving the pressure on talented RB Justin Fargas. That's is not a recipe for many wins, even when nine of their opponents this year were under 500 last season. Yet there are the pieces in place for the team to be better than they have in recent years (19 wins over five seasons). You gotta like the linebackers, especially CB Nnamdi Asomugha, possibly the best at that position in the league. The defense is effective against the run but not the pass and that probably won't change this season. You look at this team and you see potential -- they added CB DeAngelo Hall from the Falcons and safety Gibril Wilson from the Giants. Both are under 27 and improve the defense against the passing game. But its parts might be greater than the whole and it hard to imagine the organization getting their act together.


Kansas City Chiefs (3-13)

The Chiefs are rebuilding and are years away from competing. The opening game (in Foxboro) will set the tone for much of the season and it is difficult to see where even three wins will come from. They look like an expansion team and will play like one. But they are drafting intelligently and the patience of management and the fans will eventually be rewarded.


Wild Card Round:
Indianapolis Colts beat Pittsburgh Steelers
Jacksonville Jaguars beat New York Jets

Divisional Round:
Jaguars beat New England Patriots
San Diego Chargers beat Colts

AFC Championship:
SD beats Jax

SuperBowl:
San Diego beats Dallas

Regular Season Awards:
MVP: Drew Brees (New Orleans Saints)
Defensive Player of the Year: Jared Allen (Minnesota Vikings)
Offensive Player of the Year: LaDainian Tomlinson (San Diego Chargers)
Offensive Rookie of the Year: Rashard Mendenhall (Pittsburgh Steelers)
Defensive Rookie of the Year: Jarod Mayo (New England Patriots)
Coach of the Year: Norv Turner (San Diego Chargers)
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:24 PM

 
Comments are welcome

Send them to paul_tuns[AT]yahoo.com.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:55 PM

 
NFL predictions -- NFC

Here are my forecasts based mostly a predicting each individual game on the schedule. Those predictions are based on the team-by-team match-ups (looking at each team's passing and rushing offenses and defenses). Once I was done, I adjusted for games where I just think the straight analysis doesn't work -- Brett Favre controls the game for the Jets or a particular defensive style might change the calculations or a team is getting tired after its fourth West coast trip.

I am not confident about my Carolina Panthers prediction (I think they could do better and finish ahead of the Tampa Bay Bucaneers) or the Minnesota Vikings which are a great team but are they really a 12-4 team. Look closely at young phenom Adrian Peterson and you realize that depending on how you count it, either 40% or half his production came in just two games. I also find it strange that in the NFC, there are a lot of teams with 12 or more wins and ten or more losses but few 9-7, 8-8 or 7-9 teams (there are three, one and none respectively). A handful of upsets will correct the 'extremes' that I have predicted. So here it goes; the AFC will go up on the weekend.

NFC East

























Dallas Cowboys (13-3)

Wade Phillips is an aggressive coach and he can afford to be with the talent he has at his disposal. The team had a record 13 Pro Bowlers last season and they are probably even better this year. QB Tony Romo is another older, more mature and better. Terrell Owens is a wonderful receiver, Jason Witten is the best tight end in the NFC, and they drafted RB Felix Jones to complement Marion Barber in the rushing game. Adam (Don't Call Me Pacman) Jones is a significant addition to a defense that is probably the best D the Cowboys have had in a decade (and one of the most under-rated defensive lines in the NFL). That line includes Tank Johnson, Jay Ratliff and Chris Canty. The linebackers are the best in the NFC (DeMarcus Ware, Greg Ellis and Anthony Spencer). The Cowboys had the third best total offense and second best scoring in the NFL last year and added Felix Jones. The team had the ninth best total defense and added Adam Jones and has a full-year of Tank Johnson. It should be a great season and one in which they break their 11-year playoff winless streak. The Vikings are much improved, New Orleans has the potential to upset, but right now it looks like the NFC title is Dallas' to lose.


Philadelphia Eagles (12-4 - Wild Card)

The team has no real weakness. Sure a large core of this team is getting old and there was a little regression last year, but I think they are going to turn it around. Rush Limbaugh is right -- Donovan McNabb is over-rated, but he isn't shabby. He was lacklustre in 2007 following a knee injury, but he should rebound. In 10 of their 16 games, they failed to score 20 points, mostly because he had trouble in the red zone and making long throws. If McNabb rebounds, the Eagles will be dominant, especially in those games in which he dominates (as he is capable of doing). They also have RB Jake Westbrook, a game changer, either running through the middle for tough yards or sprinting on the periphery. The Eagles traded with Miami to obtain Lorenzo Booker, to add another dimension to their rushing game. They have a pair of solid if not splashy receivers in Kevin Curtis and Reggie Brown. The Eagles are serious about contending, signing the top free agent of the off-season, CB Asante Samuel (from the New England Patriots) to significantly upgrade a defense that was in the top third. Mainstream predictions have the Eagles winning between six and twelve games and finishing fourth to first. Things could go wrong to derail a great season, but there is a lot of upside.


New York Giants (9-7)

The Giants won the Super Bowl on an amazing month's worth of games, many of which involved luck and unbelievable (and unprecedented) plays from QB Eli Manning. Some of have described their post-season run of four wins 'magical' but the magic is about to run out. The team ran an impropable January into a championship but Manning is not as good as the great string of games he played late in the season and one of the better defensive teams in the NFL has been blown apart by retirement (Michael Strahan) and injury (Osi Umenyiora). The team also lost TE Jeremy Shockey in a trade. The offense will have its moments; receiver Plaxico Burress has his amazing moments. Manning is capable of very fine games but too often he is forced to make the spectacular pass because he couldn't move the ball up on the first two tries or he got sacked and lost seven yards. The thunder and lightning combo of Brandon Jacobs and Ahmad Bradshaw will be together all season. This is a good team in a tough division. That said, they won't repeat as champions and are unlikely to even make the playoffs again because while they are capable of great games, they are frustratingly inconsistent. They also rode an improbable 7-1 road record to the playoffs and that won't happen again. (They've been 3-5 at home the past two seasons.)


Washington Redskins (5-11)

I'm sure it means something -- and not something good -- that new coach Jim Zorn is the first head coach not to be a former NFL coordinator or college head coach in 20 years. He will lead a team of veterans -- and not the good kind. They are old and declining. Jason Campbell is only 26 but is only an average quarterback -- at best -- who can't read opposing defenses. His backup, Todd Collins, turns 37 this year and is, as The Sporting News put it, 'practically immobile.' The 'Skins lack a go-to receiver although the running game is in dependable hands with the duo of Clinton Portis and Ladell Betts. The offensive line doesn't help as it is slightly below average and old (not one starter is under 30) so while Redskins fans will call it experienced, there is the potential for injuries or serious regression. The team defends against the rush fairly well (fourth in the NFL last year) but the rest of the D is suspect -- and getting up in their years. The team needs a demolition and rebuild, but they haven't figured that out yet. It will be a long season for Redskins fans, especially after their hopes were raised when the team won the final four games of 2007 and squeezed into the playoffs as a wild card. They won't be so lucky this year.


NFC North


























Minnesota Vikings (12-4)

Although there are questions about QB Tavaris Jackson, the Vikings are one team whose regular season fate does not depend on the quarterback, even though they face the fifth toughest schedule (their 2008 opponents had a 551 winning percentage last season). As long as Jackson or Gus Frerotte gets the ball to second-year RB Adrian Peterson, the team is in good hands. The team is deep and talented. The Vikings have the best rushing team but their passing ranked 28th (out of 32) so the pickup of Bears' talented WR Bernard Berrian adds another dimension to the offense. The team had the best defense against the running game (the 'Williams Wall' of the unrelated Ken and Pat Williams) and they went out and picked up Kansas City Chiefs RE Jared Allen to shore up their middling pass defense. Coach Brad Childress makes unconventional strategic plays but seldom gets burned. Were it not for the Cowboys, it would be easy to imagine the team lifting the Super Bowl on February 1st. They will be a dominating team that will go far in the post-season.


Green Bay Packers (9-7, Wild Card)

Two months ago I would have predicted the Packers to win the NFC North easily, but the Brett Favre circus might prove too big a distraction, undermining his heir, QB Aaron Rodgers. Still, this is a talented and deep team. Part of the reason that Favre was so good on the fly is that he had so many good options (RB Ryan Grant, WRs Donald Driver and Greg Jennings are the best of a strong bunch) and a good offensive line. The Packers wideouts were the best after the catch. Those elements are still there. The defense is very good, although several important pieces of it are getting up there in age (Al Harris turns 34 in December, Charles Woodson 32 in October). All that siad, the 13-3 record of 2007 was largely based on their passing offense (2nd best in the NFL) which led to the fourth best scoring team. That was largely Favre. This is a winning team, but how much of one rests on Rodgers' shoulders.


Chicago Bears (5-11)

The team's defense is decent, but the offense just isn't there. The Bears sport a pair of backup quality QBs (Rex Grossman and Kyle Orton) who battled for the starters job (Orton won). There is no one Orton can pass to after their top two receivers left via free agency and there there is no one to hand the ball to. Devin Hester, the best returner in the game (six returns for TDs in '07 after five the year before), will be adding wideout duties. But considering how offensively inept this team is, Hester's returns are the best chances for the Bears to score. Their defense is stellar (tied for the sixth fewest points allowed) but they won't score enough to take advantage of that.


Detroit Lions (4-12)

The really sad thing is that the Lions do not realize they are rebuilding. If they did, fans could tolerate a horrible season or so, but the brain trust has no idea what they are doing. The Lions started 6-2, and were looking forward to put an end to six consecutive seasons of sub-500 football. They went 1-7 down the stretch to make it seven losing seasons in a row. Their hopes for renewal rest with 36-year-old middling QB Jon Kitna who will be given every chance to fail. This is a mistake as the team needs to start providing experience to someone younger who might still be around when the Lions have a legitimate shot at respectability. If both Kitna and running back Kevin Smith are as good as team president Matt Millen hopes, the Lions might approach 500, but the chances both are better than they have recently displayed on the field is highly unlikely. The Lions have little else: the defense is below average and lost DT Shaun Rogers, the offensive line is downright awful, and the running game beyond Smith is absolutely dreadful. The receivers are a scrappy bunch but their performance will be dependent on a proven disappointment at QB. Someone needs to fire Millen who is 31-81 since taking over the team in 2001, and blow up the team to begin the slow rebuilding process.


NFC South































New Orleans (12-4)

I'm making my prediction for the Saints on the basis of my prediction for their QB Drew Brees: he will become a 'franchise quarterback' -- and one of the best three in the NFL. He's in his prime and for the first time in four years he didn't rehab in the off-season. I expect big things from him and he'll make the whole offense better. Marques Colston is an under-rated receiver and the RB duo of Reggie Bush and Deuce McAllister might be the best in the league, and Bush might get even better. The offense gets to do their thing (especially in the red zone, where they had the best offense in the NFL) because of a solid offensive line. The defense was poor last year but they aggressively addressed the issue, acquiring linebackers Jonathan Vilma and Dan Morgan, DE Bobby McCray, and CB Randall Gay, and drafting defensive players with their top three picks including DT Sedrick Ellis from USC. Improvement from key elements in the offense and addressing the weakness on defense, combined with an easier schedule in 2008 (449 opponents winning percentage), means that New Orleans wins the South. And Brees wins MVP.


Tampa Bay Bucaneers (9-7)

Since the NFL moved from six to eight divisions in 2002, no team was repeated as NFC South division winner. QB Jeff Garcia is good but his style of play and age (38) make him a high injury risk. Neither the rushers nor receivers are anything special and the offensive line is middling (the Bucs are following a plan to build it for the future). WR Joey Galloway, their best receiver, is good but 36. 'Nuff said. With the likely career-ending injury to RB Cadillac Williams, the makeshift running game might end up better than its individual parts, but RBs Earnest Graham, Warrick Dunn (a former Buc signed as a free agent after six years in Atlanta) and Michael Bennett (a backup in Kansas City acquired through a trade) don't inspire a lot of confidence. Tampa employs a Tampa 2 defense. It was second overall in 2007 and best against the pass because it leaves seven defenders in coverage, making it harder for opposing QBs to find open receivers. Although the defense might not be quite as good as they were last year, they will keep the Bucs in most games.


Carolina Panthers (8-8)

The 7-9 2007 record was a disappointment, but this year isn't going to be much better. Last year, they used four quarterbacks after Jake Delhomme went down for the season in the third game and became the third QB in NFL history to undergo Tommy John surgery. The team's fortunes rest on his recovery, which I doubt will be full. The running backs are nothing special and the good but unspectacular receivers are led by Steve Smith who had a poor 2007. Many expect him to rebound and he will end up being Delhomme's favourite passing target. How they both come back will mean the difference between an above or below 500 season. (They'll miss Smith for the first two games because he has been suspended.) Neither Drew Carter or Keary Colbert worried opponents so Smith ended up being double teamed and the Panthers couldn't capitalize. They went and got WRs Muhsin Muhammad and D.J. Hackett from the Bears and Seahawks respectively to improve their options. It should help. Their total defense was in the absolute middle of the league (16th overall), but their defensive lineman, including one-time star Julius Peppers, were atrocious. John Fox is a conservative coach who stresses fundamentals, but he just doesn't have the team to compete. Their goal is to make the playoffs but they will miss the mark by several games.


Atlanta Falcons (3-13)

The team has begun its rebuilding process and will start rookie QB Matt Ryan. He wont' be helped by having the worst offensive line in front of him; all but one of that line returns in 2008. The defense lacks power on the defensive line and their defensive backs have limited range. The team was 29th in both points scored and points allowed and they might take a step backward in 2008. But at least they have a plan for the future and could be competitive by 2010. Patience will be necessary for both the organization and its fans.


NFC West































Seattle Seahawks (11-5)

Aaron Schatz of the Football Outsiders calls the Seahawks the Atlanta Braves of the NFL: "consistently winning a weak division, year after year, but struggling in the playoffs." The team wants to deliver in Paul Holmgren's final season as coach and they'll win another division title for him, but, as usual, not much more. QB Matt Hasselback is good although he sometimes gets himself into trouble with boneheaded moves such as passing into coverage. Last year he lacked compelling targets in the passing game. The team hopes signing WRs Julius Jones and T. J. Duckett and hiring a new offensive line coach, Mike Solari, will improve a 9th ranked offense. Yet there are still serious weaknesses: the offensive line is merely average at best, the running game is below average (ranked 20th overall, rushing 16.1 fewer yards than average), and the kicking and punting game is pathetic. It's all a recipe for winning a bad division but exiting the post-season early. They are good enough to prey on the 'Niners, Cardinals and Rams to inflate their record and capture their fifth consecutive NFC West title, but they are not good enough to beat any other playoff-bound team.


San Francisco 49ers (6-10)

The 49ers brought in Mike Martz from the Detroit Lions to become their new offensive coordinator -- their sixth in six seasons. Martz is famous for having a thick book of complicated plays. For some reason, not apparent to most observers, the team thinks J.T. O'Sullivan is an NFL-calibre starting QB. And he doesn't have anyone dependable to pass to. Notions that San Fran can grope to a near-500 record seem unrealistic. It will take most of the season for O'Sullivan to grasp Martz's system. RB Frank Gore and newly acquired RB DeShaun Foster make for an effective and exciting running game, but the passing game, even with the acquisition of 35-year-old, lifelong Rams WR Isaac Bruce, is pretty lousy. It is unlikely that the team's collection of players will be the necessary components of Martz's offense, but there is nowhere to go but up; the 49ers finished 32 in total offense, passing offense and scoring last year. Their defense wasn't much better (25th in total defense) and they lost some key components from last season (DE Bryant Young retired, DE Marques Douglas left for Tampa). That said, cornerback Nate Clement is one of the most exciting defensive players, winning four interceptions, breaking up 18 passes and forcing three fumbles in the first year of his 8-year, $80 million deal. Inside linebacker Patrick Willis was phenomenal for a rookie and he should improve. The secondary is solid. There are numerous football pundits who see a team that will improve their offense and build a reliable defense to finish near 500. I don't see it. This is a long-term project that won't begin paying dividends quite yet. They are likely to lose quite a few close games.


Arizona Cardinals (4-12)

The QB situation got settled in the pre-season with yesterday's man Kurt Warner beating out 'promising' talent Matt Leinart for the starter's job. Warner will lose it quickly and Leinart will soon prove why he didn't deserve the job either. The team is building a respectable offensive line and TE Leonard Pope is emerging as a quality player. Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin are a good pair of WRs when they are healthy and the passing game could be respectable with a quality QB. The running game is nothing to write home about. Last year, the Cardinals were 7th in scoring and scored the second most points in franchise history (404). That seems like a bit of a fluke and they will regress to their real capabilities in 2008. The defense is thoroughly average. Yet, the whole team is less than its sub-standard parts: last year their total defense was rated 17th overall but only five teams allowed more points. It is hard to see where the wins are going to come from, even though they have a relatively easy schedule (465 opponents winning percentage) -- yet even that is misleaing; it is still more difficult than the schedule from their lousy 5-11 2007 campaign.


St. Louis Rams (3-13)

The Rams are an old team so the notion that 2007 was mostly the result of injuries and that they can be expected to do better, misses the point: old teams get hurt. Throw in a brutal first half schedule (the entire NFC East, New England and Seattle) and the Rams look like a good bet to repeat their 3-13 record of last year. QB Marc Bulger had an awful year with career lows in completion percentage (58.5%), touchdown passes (11), and passer rating (70.3). He isn't that bad, but it isn't clear how much better he will be. My bet, not much. Part of the problem was Bulger had lousy protection (48 sacks allowed) and the Rams hope the return of a healthy Orlando Pace (left tackle) improves the offensive line and some of their other additions to the line pay off. But they still look like one of the worst OLs in the NFL, so Bulger can expect another miserable year. The departure of WR Isaac Bruce will be felt, especially with the chronic knee problems of receiver Torry Holt. A healthy Steven Jackson is the key to the offense (the RB has three straight seasons of 1000 yards rushing), but there isn't much supporting cast. The defense allowed the second most points in the NFL and remains a below average D. The defensive line and linebackers are seriously under-sized. There were no significant additions other than second overall draft pick Chris Long (DE). All this spells trouble unless there is a lot of improvement from a handful of second-year players such as tackles Adam Carriker and Clifton Ryan. There are just too many areas that needed improving. The Rams will have a miserable season.

Playoffs:

Wild Card Round:
Minnesota Vikings beat Seattle Seahawks
Philadelphia Eagles beat Green Bay Packers

Divisional Round:
New Orleans Saints beat Eagles
Dallas Cowboys beat Vikings

NFC Championship:
Cowboys beat Saints
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:20 PM

 
Different party, same smell

From CanWest:

The federal Conservatives were busy yesterday, rushing out billions of dollars in funding announcements, including:

Windsor: Prime Minister Stephen Harper announces a repayable loan of $80 million to help Ford Motor Co. reopen an idled factory.

Quebec City: Infrastructure Minister Lawrence Cannon announces that the federal government and Quebec have agreed to terms on a deal that will spring $4 billion worth of federal funding for infrastructure projects in Quebec.

Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, Que.: $112.5 million for highway improvements.

Longeuil, Que.: Industry Minister Jim Prentice announces a $27-million repayable loan to aerospace firm

Toronto: $4.6-million repayable loan to aerospace firm

Prince George, B.C.: $3.5 million for two road projects

Winnipeg: $3.4 million for a French-language theatre

Montague, P.E.I.: $3.4 million for infrastructure

Vancouver: $2.8 million to help area youth get jobs

Edmonton: $1 million for the city airport and the Asia Pacific Foundation

Crapaud & Stratford, P.E.I.: $3.4 million for community development

St. John's, N.L.: $565,000 for a new hiking trail

Toronto: $500,000 to help immigrants

Edmundston, N.B.: $500,000 loan to a manufacturer

Ottawa: $450,000 for Dominion Institute history project

Kingston Peninsula, N.B.: $45,000 to help sturgeon company

Montreal: $30,000 for an organ music festival

Saint-Jean-Port-Joli, Que.: $3,000 to a music festival
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:22 AM

 
More to the point

Eve Fairbanks at The Stump:

"That’s the problem with the positive case Palin made for herself, with its emphasis on all that small-town stuff: It convinced me that she makes a good PTA mom, that she may make a fine mayor, that she hasn’t totally bombed as the essentially brand-new governor of the third-least-populous state in the Union, even that I might like to have a beer with her, or a glass of fermented whale milk or whatever one drinks with mooseburgers. But just because we’re a nation of a hundred thousand Wasillas doesn’t mean all those hundred thousand mayors ought to be in the White House. Tonight, she sounded for all the world like an unusually sharp version of those 'regular people' they drag onstage at conventions to tell their stories in the off-primetime hours."

I could do without the condescension, but Fairbanks is exactly right. Imagine if the Democratic equivalent of Palin were chosen by Obama. What would Republicans say? She's just a mayor of a small town. She was picked because she was a chick. Such and such is a small state. She has no foreign policy experience.

Regular people shouldn't be president -- or John McCain's heartbeat away from it.

That isn't to say that the public doesn't eat up this regular person stuff -- Nate Silver is wrong to say "there's a pretty big who the fuck does she think she is? factor."
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:59 AM

 
GOP convention

I have ignored the conventions until last night -- and I only watched Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin because my mother-in-law was over. I thought Romney was awful, but was impressed by Giuliani and Palin. Finally -- finally! -- the GOP are attacking Barack Obama. I'm not sure it matters. I don't think many people watch these things too closely. Pundits watch them closely, but most normal people don't.

A few random thoughts.

1. Despite what some people said during Giuliani's speech, if he was more like the way he was last night during the campaign he would still have lost. The problem for Giuliani was strategy, not appearance. He messed up badly by skipping the early primaries and caucuses (just as Hillary Clinton lost because she didn't put as much effort in early caucuses as Barack Obama did).

2. Palin is charming. She is pugnacious. And that combo will help her fullfil her primary political responsibility: attack Obama, attack Obama and attack Obama. She looks like she is able to land serious punches and duck the counter-attack.

3. She has excited the base to become active in a way that McCain just can't.

4. I am less enthusiastic about Palin than I was on the weekend and I was less enthusiastic on the weekend than I was on Friday. She has all the right ideas and her personal story is compelling. But she is packaging herself as a working class mom and the identity politics employing biography as message might work. I'm not happy that the GOP is doing what Obama and Clinton were doing for six months, and Mike Huckabee did while he was lingering around the GOP primaries.

5. Palin she comes off less ready for real responsibility every time I watch her. Americans need to grow up about 'elites' and end their not-so-subtle middle class warfare. Americans like to think that anyone can grow up and be president and Palin might prove it. But it is a serious job and combating corruption in Alaska or taking care of her family is not the same thing as negotiating the world's hot spots.

6. The media was a little perturbed that the convention hinted that the Culture Wars are back. I find it odd, however, that the culture wars on being fought, in part, over the Juneau Juno and her mom. It is a little strange to watch social conservatives rally around the pregnant teen and her family while liberals attack the parents over living the feminist dream. Stranger yet, according to GOP pollsters I've talked to, is that Bristol Palin might be helping the party out more than Sarah. How sad that the GOP brand is improved by being associated with a teen pregnancy -- it makes them look more human is how one explained it to me. Perhaps an ax murderer would guarantee a landslide. And perhaps the Canadian conservatives should take a page out of the Republican playbook and arrange for Rachel Harper to get knocked up. An instant six point bump in popularity -- and pro-lifers can finally rally around the Tories.

7. John McCain better start talking about policy.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:33 AM

 
Were they watching the same speech?

Kathryn Jean Lopez in The Corner on Mitt Romney's speech:

"That Romney speech wouldn't have been a bad acceptance speech."

And K-Lo again:

"This party sounds like it believes something big and important from the way Romney tells it."

And here's Jim Geraghty at The Campaign Spot:

"I, for one, didn't get a Reagan-1976, we-nominated-the-wrong-man vibe from Mitt Romney's just-completed address. But he just offered a well-crafted speech delivered with passion and fire."

Eric Trager at Contentions:

"I hate to say it, but Romney’s speech was terrible. It was all over the place, and delivered with something that sounded more like a scream than an energetic pitch. He had a few good lines –- including his comment regarding Al Gore -– but there was no meaningful substance whatsoever."

For the first time in the past two weeks, I watched more than two minutes of one of the conventions and it happened to be while Mitt Romney was on. It was atrocious, lacked passion and didn't connect with the audience. After about three minues, I turned the channel.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:31 PM

 
(Vice) Presidential qualifications

The idea that Sarah Palin is more qualified than Barack Obama by virtue of her 'executive experience' as mayor of nowheresville and governor of Alaska for nearly two years is laughable. (Or as Rush Limbaugh claims, she is more qualified than any other of the three presidential/vice presidential candidates.) But the idea that being senator for four years (or 20 or 35) is a qualification for occupying the White House is also silly. Other than perhaps the vice presidency (where one will observe presidential power and responsibilities up close), what other job is anything like that of president? What other job will prepare someone for the challenges of the White House?

Still, Newt Gingrich has a point: what has Obama done? His challenge to the CNN reporter, who properly did not answer, is right on the mark. What has Obama ever done? Other than defeating Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries, I can't think of another significant accomplishment for the junior senator from Illinois.
posted by Paul Tuns at 4:03 PM

 
Women candidates and the Left's hypocrisy

The Ottawa Citizen's David Warren begins his must-read column on the media and women/black candidates who don't pass their muster:

"As everyone with access to the mainstream media knows, the Alaskan 17-year-old, Bristol Palin, is pregnant by a high school hockey jock named Levi, and is going to have the baby and marry him.

The august, liberal New York Times carried three big "analyses" on this yesterday, in which their top correspondents had a go at performing journalistic "gotchas" on Sarah Palin, John McCain, and the Republican Party. They don't need to find any example of wrongdoing or irregularity in Ms. Palin's past. For their purpose is to reduce her candidacy to a soap opera, so that readers will not be tempted to listen to the woman, or form any judgment of their own about her qualifications to be on a presidential ticket.

One begins to understand why women other than Hillary Clinton are seldom considered for such positions. For the American liberal media grant themselves a free pass on all traditional principles of decency, and every feminist talking point besides, when they are confronted with a woman not in the feminist stereotype. Similarly, should a black man be put forward for an important office, who is not ideologically one of theirs, he will be received, journalistically, as Judge Clarence Thomas was back in 1991 -- publicly lynched."

But as George Neumayr notes at TAS Online, conservatives are not without their own hypocrisy: "Roles have been bewilderingly reversed: cultural conservatives see in Palin Joan of Arc while liberals demand to know why she isn't toiling in the nursery." (The rest of the column focuses on liberal hypocrisy, on how Palin's story and views upset the 'Margaret Sanger Left'.)

The Wall Street Journal also looks at the media's double standards and hypocrisy.
posted by Paul Tuns at 3:57 PM

 
A Canadian election -- why now?

Gerry Nicholls says in the Toronto Sun the election will be called now because the Harper Conservatives say it will be now. For many Canadian Conservatives -- and conservatives -- that is good enough. I think that Harper's case (the opposition is preventing Parliament from doing its proper work by wasting its time investigating the phony in-and-out 'scandal') will be persuasive. Anyway, you can tell it is election time because Ottawa is handing out goodies again; different party, same smell.

Gerry's column is a good one, but I have a problem with this: "[A]lso important from Harper's view is that a quick election call will catch the Liberal Party unprepared." Is Stephane Dion's Liberal Party that inept that it would be unprepared for an election everyone has expected for 18 months?
posted by Paul Tuns at 3:46 PM

 
May the Greens not debate

From Hacks and Wonks:

"Elizabeth May has not yet shown she is serious about getting herself elected, least of all the Green party. And she's demanding to be taken seriously by the television consortium that puts these things together?

When Obama finally decides to debate McCain, tune in a watch how much you find out about the two men when the debate is focused on the two serious candidates for President. Then tune into ours and imagine how useful the US debate would be if Ralph Nadar and Bob Barr were let in and given equal treatment with Obama & McCain.

We hurt our debate and we hurt our electoral knowledge playing everything "fair". We should have no guilt about asking for a debate that consists of the people actually in a position to govern. It's not wrong of us to ask for that."

And it is clarified in a follow-up post:

"I oppose the Greens because I just don't believe that we should be taking valuble and limited airtime away from the leaders that matter in this election. Like many Canadian voters, I do not need to hear a segment of Elizabeth May and Gilles Duceppe debating the Canadian Wheat Board simply because it's their turn for a one-on-one when that question comes up."

All this presumes, as H&W notes, the current structure of not just current politics but the present debate structure. The important point is that in the name of the fuzzy concept of fairness, the Greens potentially (and the Bloc presently) get to participate in a fanciful exercise that doesn't elucidate the issues for voters in a meaningful way.
posted by Paul Tuns at 3:40 PM

 
Two problems with NRO column defending Palin

Tom Gross is onto something here:

"Critics are already trying to damn Sarah Palin for her perceived lack of foreign-policy experience, but what they are not allowing for is something more important — that she has the right basic attitudes and sense of priorities. She understands that aggression has to be resisted and commitments have to be honored."

As the GOP/Rush Limbaugh talking point goes, Joe Biden might have lots of experience, but its a lot of experience being on the wrong side of the big questions. However, experience -- or, more importantly, competence -- does matter and increasingly Sarah Palin seems not ready for prime time, even a bit flighty. As the Bush administration has demonstrated, having the right views is great but basic competence is important, too. Too many Republicans and conservatives can't admit that.

The second problem comes in the conclusion when Gross says:

"The U.S. and Israel can have every confidence that, like McCain, [Palin] is a doer who means what she says..."

I hate to sound like a writer for The American Conservative, but what country is the Republican Party running in. Its this kind of talk that gives credence to complaints about Jewish capture of American government.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:19 AM

 
Note to the right wing

Kathy Shaidle on Miss Palin: "Conservative bloggers, make up your minds: either Palin's daughter is off limits OR she is a 'great example'."
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:52 AM

 
The death of newspapers (even while they still publish)

Joe Nocera writes in his Executive Suite blog at the New York Times about what he sees as the decline of the Wall Street Journal. Nocera does not accuse Rupert Murdoch of making the paper more conservative or pursuing some other personal agenda. Rather, he complains that the paper contains so little business news in its front section, focusing, increasingly, on federal politics. He concludes:

"I’ll never stop subscribing to The Journal, just like I’ll never stop subscribing to The New Yorker. But it used to be that on days when I was too busy to read it, I feared I was missing something. This week, I realized, I don’t feel that way anymore."

Question: does anyone feel that they missed something when they haven't read a daily paper? That was certainly true at one time, and not so long ago, but not anymore.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:40 AM

 
How bad is the GOP brand?

Apparently having a vice presidential candidate with a knocked-up teen is good for the Republican image. Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina is quoted by The New York Times:

"People are looking for real. Real means blemishes, real means warts, real means real. These family imperfections make people say, 'That family isn’t so different from my family'."
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:18 AM

 
Andrew Sullivan: a special kind of stupid

I thought his views on John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin were over the top:

"The bottom line is that he obviously hadn't vetted this person in any halfway competent fashion. McCain's first major presidential decision was rash, impulsive, ill-researched and foisted on the world with no warning. With this decision, McCain clearly wanted to indicate that he was breaking with Bush. But the manner in which he made it proves he truly is Bush's third term - just more reckless."

Just because one doesn't like Palin as the GOP vice presidential nominee doesn't mean that she wasn't vetted or that the decision was rash or ill-research or 'foisted upon the world without warning'. (Why does that matter?) The fact is Sullivan doesn't know about the process in which Palin was selected, so he should shut up or temper his comments with the nuance and phony equivocation ('McCain doesn't seem to have done a good job vetting the vice presidential choices', etc...) but he doesn't seem to have such inclinations to the usual niceties practised in punditry.

And then Sullivan outdoes himself, demanding gynecological information from Palin to prove that Bristol is not the real mother of Sarah Palin's Downs Syndrome baby ("Why not kill this rumor with Palin's medical records? A 43 year old woman's pregnancy with a Downs Syndrome child would have been intensely monitored, and the records must be a mile long. Just release them, ok?") Nuts. Absolutely nuts. I'm not one to call for resignations over absurd or even irresponsible behaviour, but Sullivan has proven he is simply not qualified to comment on politics. The Atlantic should can him. Keeping him in their employ, or his blog on their site, speaks to their poor judgemet.
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:01 AM

 
Market predictors

This is nothing new: UBC business professors are setting up a Canadian election prediction stock market. Great idea and more accurate than polls. (Here is the website for the election stock market from 2006.) I liked this quote from Werner Antweiler, one of the profs: "Your pocketbook is closer to your heart than your political preference ... it's a truth revelation mechanism."
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:39 AM

 
Republicans should be ashamed of themselves

... if politics is about principles. It ain't. But if it was, Heather Mac Donald would have a point:

"True, Palin brings traditional political strengths—such as gun enthusiasm and a pro-life record—to the ticket. Her fight against self-dealing in Alaskan politics counters the inside-the-Beltway corruption that damaged the Republicans in the 2006 elections. And her stance on drilling for Alaskan oil admirably bolsters the Republican Party platform on energy issues. But admit it, fellow conservatives: none of these attributes pushed her over the top. Your enthusiasm for her is driven in large measure by the fact that the McCain camp has beaten the Democrats at their own game, and in so doing, driven Obama’s moment of glory off the wires."

So the principled conservative in me is appalled by the Palin pick, while the political conservative in me applauds the Palin gambit. It is strange how these two parts of me can live together so easily. And then there's the politics-is-a-fun-spectacle-to-watch part of me that thanks John McCain for putting someone on the national stage who is not unpleasant to watch.
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:08 AM