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

 
From the 'Don't vote it only encourages them' files

Rick McGinnis in The Metro on the raw deal women voters get in the United States:

"It’s neither likely nor perhaps even desirable, but if half of U.S. voters withdrew their franchise in protest, it would wreak havoc with pollsters and campaign operatives at the very least, and delegitimize a dispiriting and tainted election at best. It’s a slap that would perhaps bring otherwise intelligent people back to their senses, and restore some decency to a process that has devolved into a shameful rebuke of a woman’s right to participate in their country’s political life."

(HT: Five Feet of Fury)
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:00 AM

 
Surge in black turnout has begun

Nate Silver at The New Republic explains.

I predicted this in August after visiting Pittsburgh and finding myself in a neighbourhood I normally would not travel through. The poor, black neighbourhood is typically not the place one would find political engagement, including voting, but most houses had Obama signs on their lawns. While one could explain this phenomenon by suggesting that party organization, community activists and peer pressure got the signs out and not voter enthusiasm, such an explanation only goes so far. The peer pressure (and other factors) will also conspire to ensure voters show up to cast their ballots. Seeing your neighbour and neighbour's neighbour advertise the black candidate for months and months before election day could have a dramatic effect on encouraging participation on election day -- or in advanced voting, as is apparently happening. I'm predicting a large margin of victory for Obama in the popular vote because polling is not capturing what should be an unprecedented turnout among black (and youth) voters.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:49 AM

 
ACORN -- the nut is cracked

Over at The American Spectator Online, Matthew Vadum looks at ACORN and its activities and the confusion it deliberately creates to avoid proper scrutiny. A sample:

"ACORN's many affiliates have extraordinarily sophisticated financial arrangements that are largely hidden from public view. ACORN uses its system of interlocking boards of directors to oversee its affiliates and make financial mischief.

As Jim Terry of the Consumers Rights League has noted, 'ACORN has a long and sordid history of employing convoluted Enron-style accounting to illegally use taxpayer funds for their own political gain.'

Look at a person named Donna Pharr. Pharr sits on the boards of at least 22 ACORN affiliates. She's also deputy treasurer of the Minnesota ACORN Political Action Committee and is listed by Michigan as the contact person for Communities Voting Together, a '527' pressure group.

And even now after it was revealed earlier this year that ACORN founder Wade Rathke covered up his brother's nearly $1 million embezzlement, Rathke remains chief organizer of ACORN affiliate SEIU Local 100, president of ACORN International Inc., and president and a director of ACORN affiliate Affiliated Media Foundation Movement Inc."

Also, look at Vadum's longer "Acorn: Who Funds the Weather Underground's Little Broth?", a Foundation Watch expose.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:34 AM

 
'Don't Just Do Something. Stand There.'

Russell Roberts explains in the Wall Street Journal the real lesson from the Great Depression: Do nothing. He demonstrates why by recounting actual history from 1932. First, Congress increased tariffs and the Federal Reserve contracted money supply. President Herbert Hoover increased spending by 40% and raised taxes to pay for it. A recession became a depression and America looked for answers from a Democrat, FDR:

"So Franklin Roosevelt came into office pledging stronger medicine. Enter even bigger increases in government spending. Government nationalization. Bigger deficits. Destruction of crops and livestock in the name of raising prices. Government-organized cartels. A greater empowerment of unions. It was a whirlwind of activity without any real plan."

And things got worse, not better, under the New Deal.

The point is that most of the things government can do to affect the economy doesn't affect it positively. We don't really know what works but history teaches us what usually doesn't.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:23 AM

 
The American election and national security

In the pages of the Wall Street Journal Frederick Kagan says national security should be the deciding factor in choosing a president. Just a quick comment: if something is a deciding issue, then it can be the decisive issue. Something has to tip the balance. Kagan likes national security. Over at NRO, Hadley Arkes argues that it is not too late to make this election about national security. I think that Arkes is wrong to say that President George Bush himself should be making the case that America is still at risk to terrorist attacks: "The sounding of that note would still remind the public, in a telling way, that there is a world of danger that has not been magically swept away by the romance of the Obama campaign." Bush is political poison and I don't get how conservatives still don't understand that. Arkes is right to say that McCain can still make the case that the "War on Terror" [sic] has not been won and that Obama risks setbacks in that endeavour. But the GOP is fighting against the widespread hope that Obamamania will magically sweep away global dangers. So it is too late to make this election about national security -- a national tragedy on the home front in the next four days notwithstanding.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:11 AM

 
Fact of the day

George F. Will in the Washington Post, in an column that is highly critical of the Republican ticket, notes:

"The Center for Responsive Politics calculates that, by Election Day, $2.4 billion will have been spent on presidential campaigns in the two-year election cycle that began in January 2007, and an additional $2.9 billion will have been spent on 435 House and 35 Senate contests. This $5.3 billion is a billion less than Americans will spend this year on potato chips."
posted by Paul Tuns at 6:35 AM

 
Two reports on the cabinet shuffle

The Toronto Star reports:

"Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Industry Minister Jim Prentice will keep their portfolios, in a bid to send a signal of stability and confidence to Canadians and the markets."

CTV reports:

"In a surprise move, Prime Minister Stephen Harper will likely shuffle Jim Prentice into the Ministry of the Environment on Thursday, while Tony Clement takes over his industry portfolio, sources have told CTV News."
posted by Paul Tuns at 6:29 AM

 
Slate's roster of writers & editors (almost) all support Obama

The list is here. There are a few non-voters although it is because they are not Americans (4). There are 55 Obama supporters, one McCain supporter, one "not-McCain", and one Bob Barr. Jack Shafer, editor at large, has always voted libertarian. Rachael Larimore, deputy managing editor and copy chief, said her support for McCain was an easy decision.

My favourite Slate writer Emily Yoffe, the "Dear Prudence" columnist, supports Obama and says: "Please, please, Barack, don't become another Jimmy Carter."

And I like what William Saletan about elections in general: "The basic purpose of voting is to get rid of leaders who govern badly."
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:14 PM

 
'82 percent of American Catholics surveyed are functionally Protestant'

That's Rod Dreher's assessment after reading this L.A. Times story on Catholic voters. What is troubling to Dreher is that although about one in four U.S. Catholic bishops have spoken out about how abortion must be the determining issue for Catholic voters, the Times reports that according to polling data, "only 18% of Catholics 'strongly' agree with the statement: 'In deciding what is morally acceptable, I look to the church teachings and statements by the pope and bishops to form my conscience'."
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:10 AM

 
Tyranny of Nice now in second printing































One of the proud co-authors blogs about it, saying:

"The Tyranny of Nice is your field guide for the fight for free speech!

So if you'd like to help spread that vital message around, and make The Tyranny of Nice the least-famous bestselling book in Canada, pick up your copy today!"

You can read an excerpt of The Tyranny of Nice at The Western Standard.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:00 AM

 
Things we'd like to hear Stephen Harper say

Gerry Nicholls has an unlikely list:

“The free market system is superior to socialism when it comes to generating wealth and prosperity.”

“We don’t need more government in Canada, we need less.”

“Since free speech is the life blood of democracy; it’s time to scrap election gag laws and it’s time to defang Human Rights Commissions.”

“Why is the government in the broadcast business? We should privatize the CBC.”

“The government’s monopoly on health care services must end; Canadians deserve a choice.”
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:51 AM

 
Anyone surprised that former Liberal PM availed himself of government for personal use?

The Ottawa Citizen reports:

"The federal government paid to conduct and transcribe hundreds of hours of interviews with Paul Martin and other political figures from his time in office, funding the creation of an "oral history" that the former prime minister says became the "spine" of the political memoir he released this week.

Library and Archives Canada hired former Ontario Liberal cabinet minister and academic Sean Conway to interview Mr. Martin and other officials he worked with in government, and prepare the transcripts that will become part of Mr. Martin's collection of records.

The transcripts of these interviews commissioned by Archives will become public only after Mr. Martin's death. But copies of the transcripts were provided to Mr. Martin and a researcher hired by the publisher of Hell or High Water: My Life in and Out of Politics to help write the book."
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:45 AM

 
Quote of the day

"When it becomes dominated by a collectivist creed, democracy will inevitably destroy itself."
-- Fredrich August von Hayek
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:42 AM

 
The case against Obama

The courts. Specifically the Supreme Court. Some are laksadiscal over Barack Obama appointing Supreme Court Justices because the two he is most likely to replace are already part of the 4+1 (the one being Anthony Kennedy) liberal majority -- that is the judicial activists who are willing to over-ride clear constitutional strictures and the will of the people as determined by their legislative bodies. That might be true -- and it would be bad enough to replace the older liberal justices with younger justices that continue to commit constitutional vandalism for decades -- but it ignore the fact that good, constitutionalist judges might step down or pass away.

Ed Whelan has an excellent article about this at NRO and you should read all of it. Here's a taste:

"If we look to the future and take seriously the positions and principles that the five living-constitutionalists have already adopted, the Court, as it is now composed, may very well have five votes for, say, the imposition of a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage, five votes for stripping “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance and for complete secularization of the public square, five votes for continuing to abolish the death penalty on the installment plan, five votes for selectively importing into the Court’s interpretation of the American Constitution the favored policies of Europe’s leftist elites, five votes for further judicial micromanagement of the government’s war powers, and five votes for the invention of a constitutional right to human cloning...

With its five living-constitutionalists, the Supreme Court is well to the left of the American public and threatens to engage in yet more wild acts of liberal judicial activism. The Court urgently needs to be transformed into an institution that practices judicial restraint. If Barack Obama is elected president, he will drive the Court further in the wrong direction, and the liberal judicial activists that he appoints will likely serve for two or three decades. Our system of representative government, already under siege, would be lucky to survive an Obama presidency."

The irony is that the courts, which conservatives say should not be politicized or the locus of policy-making, should be the determining factor for voting for John McCain.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:31 AM

 
Good grief

National Post: "Justin Trudeau top pick for Liberal leader: poll." As Kathy Shaidle says, there is never an avalanche around when you need one.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:19 AM

 
Things predictable and unpredictable

Predictable: Frank McKenna is not running for the Liberal leadership.

Unpredictable: Doug Finley is stepping down as the Conservative Party's director of political operations.

Both of these decisions will have a big impact on the future of Canadian politics.

McKenna -- who was never, ever going to run for the Liberal leadership folks -- might have been leader, but why would he want to be. He doesn't have federal political experience, is far removed from his political career (it has been more than a decade since he was the premier of New Brunswick), is making good money in the corporate sector and shows no inclination for party-building or being patient enough to wait for two elections to become prime minister. McKenna strikes me as someone who might be a fine prime minister but lousy leader for the Liberals right now. That is not to say McKenna couldn't have won, just that he isn't what the party needs now: a builder, a nuts-and-bolts guy, someone who has been tested by the fires of political experience. McKenna foregoing the leadership contest makes Bob Rae or Michael Ignatieff the prohibitive favourites and influences the kind of party the Liberals will become. My guess is that McKenna, had he ran and not won, would have strengthened Rae's hand in a three-way front-runner race, but by not running he has made Ignatieff is a little stronger.

Finley stepping aside also influences the kind of party the Conservatives will be. Every person has his own style, own priorities, and own personal relationships that affect the everyday decisions and long-term strategies a party carries out. I am not informed enough to discuss what Finley's own preferences are, but they no doubt will be different from whoever replaces him. This is all true even if the director of political operations is a mere puppet of the prime minister. But considering how heavy-handed Finley was, imposing tactics from the Ottawa headquarters on local campaigns, one can only hope that the next puppet has a lighter touch.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:01 AM

 
In defense of principled non-voting

Rod Dreher in The American Conservative [sic]:

"This will be the first year since I was old enough to vote that I will not cast a ballot in a presidential election. I quote a character from Richard Linklater’s 'Slacker' in my defense: 'Withdrawing in disgust is not the same thing as apathy'."

That is part of an interesting (for TAC) but predictable (its TAC) symposium on how various conservatives view the choice of John McCain and Barack Obama.

I hate when I agree with Lew Rockwell:

"But what effect does voting have? It gives them what they need most: a mandate. Nonparticipation helps deny that to them. It makes them, just on the margin, a bit more fearful that they are ruling us without our consent. This is all to the good. The government should fear the people. Not voting is a good beginning toward instilling that fear."
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:44 PM

 
Smart is a relative term,
Or, the dumbing down of politics

Bryan Caplan:

"According to IQ tests, we're getting smarter. But when I was reading Warren Harding's 'Return to Normalcy' speech, it seemed way over the heads of a modern audience. The anomaly inspired me to plug Harding's words into an online grade level applet.

The result: The average estimated grade level required to understand Harding's speech was 16.06 years.

By way of comparison, Obama's 2008 acceptance speech had an average estimated grade level of 9.64 years - and McCain's was 7.72!"

And remember, as Caplan reminds us, we are getting more education today than during Harding's time:

"Harding was talking at least a standard deviation over the head of his median voter. Obama and McCain are talking at least a standard deviation below the head of theirs."
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:12 PM

 
Redistributing wealth: a practical experiment

Robert Bluey reports this (perhaps apocryphal) story:

"In a local restaurant my server had on a “Obama 08″ tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference–just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need–the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application."
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:46 AM

 
Dehumanizing patients

Writing in the New York Times, Sandeep Jauhar, a health practitioner (it is unclear, but he might have been an intern at the time), tells the story of a patient with a heart problem who died. Jauhar was asked to eulogize the man but in the eulogies before his own he found out so much about his former patient that he did not know, it is surprising he was asked to speak about 'Michael' at all. Jauhar reflects:

"I thought about how easy it is, with the time pressures of medical practice, to ignore social history, habits, the sorts of things that make a patient into a real person — and vice versa. Undoubtedly, such information would have helped me treat Michael."

The inclination to view human beings as patients -- objects of treatment -- rather than people is a problem within the medical establishment. Literally a dehumanizing problem.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:29 AM

 
Smaller towns better for minorities

The Vancouver Sun editorializes about a surprising study:

"Small towns sometimes get a bad rap for being insular, unwelcoming and uninteresting, slanders that more often than not originate in big cities.

But living in a small town offers many advantages over big city life, including the obvious ones of lower house prices, lighter traffic and relatively less crime of the sort that plagues large metropolitan areas.

A new study suggests another positive, a surprising one for those who buy into the derogatory depiction of rural life. Visible minorities report that there is less ethnic and cultural tension in small towns than in big cities...

The study by researchers Brian Ray at the University of Ottawa and Valerie Preston at York University found that 46 per cent of visible minorities in big cities felt racially related discomfort, compared with 40 per cent of visible minorities living in communities of 10,000 people or fewer."

Three theories.

1) People in smaller communities are just plain nicer.

2) Minorities are not ghettoized in smaller communities and thus become more like their surroundings. That is, assimilation leads to racial harmony. That seems to be one conclusion of Ray, one of the researchers.

3) Related to number two: there aren't self-appointed 'community leaders' who can fan the flames of racial grievance.

If it is number two, there are public policy implications. If it is number three, there is a lesson for the cultural, political and media elite.

Of course, the three theories are not mutually exclusive.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:18 AM

 
Another fine moment from the UK National Health Service

The Daily Mirror reports:

"A 25-year-old woman refused a smear test twice after a change in health policy has married her university sweetheart early after learning she is dying of cervical cancer.

Katie Hilliard was 19 when she first requested the test, but was told by doctors she didn't need it until she was 20. And a year later, she was told the revised policy for a smear test was at age 25.

Her worst fears were finally confirmed in March last year when a test revealed she had cancer...

Despite a hysterectomy, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, doctors have given Katie at best two years; at worst 11 months."

Ah, state-run health care, the hallmark of a compassionate society.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:56 AM

 
Montreal's gay new logo

















The Montreal Gazette says, "What image says "Greater Montreal" to you? If you guessed a stylized M in the colours of a roll of LifeSavers, give yourself a treat."

LifeSavers is one description.

It took a year to come up with the logo that Canada's second largest city will use to sell itself internationally.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:51 AM

 
AGS revisited

Baltimore Ravens 29, Oakland Raiders 10: Correctly predicted the Ravens would win easily. Not a hard call.

Carolina Panthers 27, Arizona Cardinals 23: Panthers overcame a 17-3 deficit with a 21-point third quarter. Cards WR Anquan Boldin returned from injury to have a good game: 9 catches, 63 yards, 2 TDs, plus one run of 30 yards. I thought the Panthers would beat the four-point spread.

Dallas Cowboys 13, Tampa Bay Buccaneers 9: I didn't think the Cowboys would win, but the defense held up, not allowing a TD although the Bucs were in the Dallas side's 25 yards four times. Roy Williams got his first TD in a Cowboys uniform. Cowboys TE Jason Witten has knocked out of the game early, making backup QB Brad Johnson even more reliant on RB Marion Barber.

Washington Redskins 25, Detroit Lions 17: Skins were favoured but few people thought they'd beat the 7.5 point spread. I said they would. But Detroit was ahead from the end of the first quarter until the middle of the third quarter. (First time all year the Lions scored in the first quarter.) Skins QB Jason Campbell had a good game: 23/28, 328 yards, 1 TD; Campbell hasn't thrown a pick all year.

Miami Dolphins 25, Buffalo Bills 16: I thought the Bills would win but four turnovers and just one TD for the Bills made the difference. Buffalo made numerous mental mistakes (having the ball stripped on a QB sneak, fumbles, an interception and getting sacked in the end zone for a safety) in the final quarter and weren't able to get back into the game. Bills blew a 16-7 lead.

New England Patriots 23, St. Louis Rams 16: I said: "Patriots win and unlike the football pundits I'll take them to beat the 7 point spread." Not quite. New England's defense kept the Rams to just one TD. The Pats offense was well-balanced. Prediction: Pats still win the AFC East.

New Orleans Saints 37, San Diego Chargers 32: Saints got ahead 37-20 on the strength of a 20-point second quarter. I predicted the Bolts would win a shoot-out. I got the shoot-out part right. Both QBs had big games. Philip Rivers had 25 completions in 40 tries, 341 yards, 3 TDs for the Bolts. Drew Brees was 30/41, 339 yards, 3 TDs. Teams combined for 860 net yards of offense.

New York Jets 28, Kansas City Chiefs 24: Lead changed six times as you might expect with the Jets this year; they had another three turnovers. It was easy to predict them winning but not covering the 13 points -- exactly what happened.

Philadelphia Eagles 27, Atlanta Falcons 14: RB Brian Westbrook was back and had a great game: 22 carries for 167 yards, with 2 TDs. He also had 42 receiving yards. The Eagles win handily and cover the 9 point spread, as predicted.

Cleveland Browns 23, Jacksonville Jaguars 17: I thought Jax would not only win but cover the 7 points. Browns needed two field goals in the final five minutes to win. Jax was incredible on 3rd and 4th downs: 11/20 (55%) and 2/4 (66%) respectively. But it was a strange game with Jags' QB David Garrard getting the second most yards for Jacksonville, including the most on the run (seven carries for 59 yards).

Houston Texans 35, Cincinnati Bengals 6: Houston had a TD in every quarter; Bengals didn't have one all day. I thought the Texans would win but wouldn't cover the 10 points. Oops. Houston is nothing special; Cincy is that bad.

New York Giants 21, Pittsburgh Steelers 14: I said: "Pittsburgh is favoured by three but the Giants look good enough to win." Through the first three-and-a-half quarters, the Steelers defense was very good, not allowing a TD despite the fact the Giants got into the red zone three times. But a missed long snap by backup long snapper James Harrison flew over the kicker's head in the end zone, scoring a Giants safety. They followed that up with a TD minutes later. Big Ben threw four interceptions.

Seattle Seahawks 34, San Francisco 49ers 13: I said the 49ers would win and win ugly. It was a bit of a strange one. The Niners led in possession (34:02) and had a substantial lead in net yards (388-261). RB Frank Gore was the Niners leading runner and receiver and new coach Mike Singletary benched J.T. O'Sullivan in the second quarter in favour of Shaun Hill who played in only his fifth game (in seven seasons). 'Hawks may have turned the corner or perhaps just feasted on an inferior team that is getting use to a new coach.

Tennessee Titans 31, Indianapolis Colts 21: Titans remain unbeaten (7-0) after a decisive second-half comeback. Indy played a great game on both sides of the ball in the first half, leading 7-6 going int half-time and were leading 14-6 partway through the third. But then their defense got sloppy, Kerry Collins continued to call a conservative, disciplined game for Tennessee and the Titans won. After giving up a TD at 3:38 (following an interception), Indy scored in an impressive and steady but meaningless drive over the last two minutes. I thought the Colts would pull off the upset but the Titans are an impressive machine with a incredible defense and efficient and useful offense.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:00 AM

 
This should seal the deal

Senator Ted Stevens, the GOP version of Robert Byrd, was convicted on seven counts of filing false financial disclosure forms, one week before he goes to the voters asking that they send him back to the Senate for a seventh full term. A moderate Republican, he is famous for defending the Bridge to Nowhere.

Stevens won a special election in 1970 to finish a term he was appointed to fill after the death of Democrat Bob Bartlett and since 1972 he has never garnered less than 66% of the vote. He is currently running behind Anchorage mayor Mark Begich (D) in his re-election bid. The seven convictions should end his Senate tenure. Good riddance.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:02 PM

 
Happiness gap between right and left

It is a matter of being part of the reality-based community. Grover Norquist, a conservative activist and president of American for Tax Reform, told the Washington Post:

"I'm very happy ... When I was 12, I realized the world was not organized around my desires and wishes. The problem with guys on the left is they never figured that out at age 12. And they're just irritated the world is not organized around their vision. This makes them grumpy."

I have often said that the essential difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives understand human weakness and offer policies that ameliorate the harm such weakness can cause (or learn to live with them) while liberals think that people are perfectible and are forever tinkering with policies that will realize that unachievable dream. There are enormous psychological consequences for liberals when after a lifetime of failure, they cannot make people more like the inhabitants of their Utopian dreamland.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:34 AM

 
A warning against NICE

Dr. David Gratzer warns Americans about the Democratic plan to import NICE from England. NICE -- the UK's National Institute for Clinical Evaluation and Excellence, the Blairite creation that determines which drugs and devices get government funding, and thus to which treatments patients have state-covered access -- is the model that numerous influential Democrats want to use to refashion America's health care system. The problem is NICE makes some typically bureaucratic decisions (read: boneheaded ones) in an attempt to control costs. Gratzer points to the case of Jack Trigg who can't get treatment for a disease that is blinding him in one eye because he is only half-blind.

American health care costs are sky-rocketing and something needs to be done, but putting treatment decisions in the hands of bureaucrats is not the answer. The government does not need to weigh in on treatment decisions, Gratzer argues, but rather make it easier for health care consumers to make decisions for themselves. That means basic information on price and quality needs to be made available. Gratzer does not dismiss a role for the state; he wants Medicare and Medicaid information to be released, compel providers of program recipients to provide pricing information and says Washington should 'promote standardization of medical records'. But these changes would "lay the groundwork for a more competitive health-care system and dispense with the need for a big-government intrusion."

It would be good for Republicans to take up this cause -- before its too late.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:22 AM

 
An honest endorsement

The Financial Times predictably backs Barack Obama, but adds:

"Rest assured that, should he win, Mr Obama is bound to disappoint. How could he not? He is expected to heal the country’s racial divisions, reverse the trend of rising inequality, improve middle-class living standards, cut almost everybody’s taxes, transform the image of the United States abroad, end the losses in Iraq, deal with the mess in Afghanistan and much more besides.

Succeeding in those endeavours would require more than uplifting oratory and presidential deportment even if the economy were growing rapidly, which it will not be."

I was amused by the FT editorial's concluding paragraph:

"The challenges facing the next president will be extraordinary. We hesitate to wish it on anyone, but we hope that Mr Obama gets the job."
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:08 AM

 
Canada's Barack Obama























Michael 'Pinball' Clemons, former CFL star and Toronto Argos coach, is often touted as a political candidate, usually for mayor but sometimes for provincial or federal office. Either directly or indirectly, two sources -- a city manager and a Liberal senator -- for this Toronto Star story, both tout Clemons as Canada's Barack Obama. Richard Morris, manager of the city's energy efficiency office, says that Clemons should have his political eyes on something bigger than the city: "His influence is global. This guy could ... listen, Barack Obama has nothing on Mike Clemons, as far as I am concerned." Morris adds: "Mike's about hope, just like Obama. He needs some federal office to lead us to a broader horizon." Liberal Senator Jerry Grafstein said of Clemons: "His is the politics of hope." The whole article is like that, even when it isn't in the words of a source. Royson James, the author of the article, performs numerous acts of journalistic fellatio throughout the story but this is the most blatant example:

"Barely 5-foot-5, Clemons' size is measured not in feet and inches but in the heights to which his words can propel an audience or the width of the smile he elicits from an unsuspecting parking lot attendant he's just tipped."
posted by Paul Tuns at 6:46 PM

 
Rooney rule

The Associated Press has reported that the NFL has voided St. Louis Rams' interim coach Jim Haslett's contract because a provision in it guarantees he will back as head coach next season if he wins six games this year. The provision is seen to be a way to circumvent the Rooney Rule which requires teams interview minority candidates for head coaching jobs (but not interim coaching positions). The Rams said, "We were looking for a provision that would ensure him an extension if he won a certain amount of games." Haslett took over after the Rams began 0-4 and won his first two games. Haslett's agent said he would have no problem interviewing for the full-time job after the regular season in order for the team to comply with the league's rule.

This is nonsense. Why go through with the charade of interviews with black would-be coaches who have no chance to win the job if Haslett demonstrates he can do a good job with the Rams? (What if he goes 9-1?) How will the league know if the Rams interview "in good faith" and with "an open mind" as the Rooney Rule requires?

The problem with the Rooney Rule was identified by Brian W. Collins in an article ("Tackling Unconscious Bias in Hiring Practices: The Plight of the Rooney Rule") in the NYU Law Review that was in favour of the Rule:

"If a franchise hires a head coach without interviewing a minority candidate, it faces a substantial fine and public condemnation. But if it hires a Caucasian head coach —- even while satisfying the Rule -— it may cause harm by perpetrating sham interviews. In contrast, if it hires an African American head coach, it will win
applause -— until it decides to fire him, "in which event they’d better have a passel of black candidates at the ready." As a result, every head coach hirer is now under a microscope."
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:16 PM

 
Rogue Palin

Sarah Palin is becoming more of her own person on the campaign trail. The New York Post has all the gossipy details. It was unlikely that John McCain was ever going to win but Palin -- her lack of credentials, her folksy ways, her religious views, her lack of discipline -- will be handy explanation for what went wrong on the GOP side. She is setting herself up as a convenient excuse for the media story-tellers come November 5th and the first draft of history gets written. Incorrectly.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:15 AM

 
Chemistry and momentum in baseball

A few weeks ago, after the Boston Red Sox came back from a 7-0 deficit to win 8-7 on October 16 to stave off elimination in the American League Championship, Baseball Prospectus' Joe Sheehan questioned the stathead approach to baseball analysis that discounts chemistry and momentum and most of the other story-telling tools of traditional sportswriters and broadcasters. Sheehan said:

"[T]oday is one of those days where you bump up against the limits of your chosen medium, do the best that you can with the tools you have, and with a knowing nod concede that nothing is going to be good enough.

It's even more complicated than that, because a game like last night's challenges your belief system. Winning is about playing baseball better than the other guys do. The construct built up around the postseason, all of the soft words you always rail against—character, heart, experience, clutch—the ones that apply ex post facto and therefore are labels used to tell stories, not actual skills that affect outcomes... you know all these things are true, and you've spent your career trying to convince people to look past the storytelling."

Tom Tango protests at HardballTimes that no one in the stathead community claims there is no such thing as chemistry or momentum and then goes on to largely dismiss momentum. The problem is partly that if it can't be quantified, certain statistics-obsessed baseball analysts downplay the thing's role.

Sheehan's column tells the story of what happened in the Sox-Rays game. A beautiful story of the unfolding events of one game. That is what we fans watch and appreciate. It is what we love. The stats may give us a deeper understanding of why things happen, they might help predict the future, and they help us analyze the game better. But they are not what happened. It may not be chemistry or momentum or any of the other narrative tropes, but it is the game. Sheehan's story tells us as much about the game and acknowledges that probabilities were not the only thing in play.
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:58 AM

 
Advice for wanna-be TV pundits

Tucker Carlson:

"Don’t wear white, show up sober and try to speak in complete sentences."

That's from an interesting article in the New York Times on the young pundits making their way to television screens. (Or as some snotty guy from the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University calls them, 'premature pundits'.) The Times quotes a former MSNBC producer admitting that conservatives are producing better young pundits, mostly thanks to the training provided by the Leadership Institute. Beverly Hallberg from the LI advises her students to look downward rather than upward, smile, and use lots of slogans and one-liners (noting flip-flop is a great term).
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:29 AM

 
What I'm reading

1. Ever Wonder Why? And Other Controversial Essays by Thomas Sowell.

2. "Development 2.0: Changing the Way Globalization Works," a report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

3. "The 400 Richest People in America," in the current special issue put out by Forbes.

4. "Is America's Infrastructure 'Crisis' Just Another Crisis for Socialism?," a Heritage Foundation WebMemo by Ronald D. Utt.

5. Liberals and the Surge by Peter Wehner at commentary.com.
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:19 AM

 
US election prediction (Congress)

Republicans lose 14-19 Congressional seats.

Republicans lose eight Senate seats:

Alaska
Colorado
Kentucky
Mississippi
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Oregon
Virginia

Republican Norm Coleman beats Democrat Al Franken in Minnesota to keep his Senate seat.

Republican Saxby Chambliss retains his Georgia Senate seat.

North Carolina Democrat Beverly Perdue beats Republican Pat McCrory in that state's gubernatorial race.

With Matt Blunt not running for re-election in Missouri, Democrat Jay Nixon wins the gubernatorial race there.

November 4th will be a bad day to be a Republican.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:34 AM

 
A corrective to the dominant narrative on Greenspan's testimony

No, he didn't concede the death of capitalism. As you would expect from a former head of the Federal Reserve he couched his criticisms and observations in more nuance than most journalists are capable of appreciating. Tyler Cowen adds perspective and the appropriate links including Greenspan's prepared remarks. Here is the most important sentence from Greenspan: "Those markets for an indefinite future will be far more restrained than would any currently contemplated new regulatory regime." Sounds like an endorsement of capitalism to me.

Well, this might be the most important sentence in his presentation: "This crisis will pass..."
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:51 AM

 
Any given Sunday










Oakland Raiders at Baltimore Ravens: The inept Raiders against a defense that completely shuts down opponents. Ravens are especially good at preventing the run which will force lackluster QB JaMarcus Russell to the air which means big, big trouble. Ravens favoured by 7. They do it easily, especially considering the Raiders are making an East coast trip for an early game.

Arizona Cardinals at Carolina Panthers: The Cards have a great air game with QB Kurt Warner looking like the MVP of 1999 & 2001. When the Panthers are on, they don't have a weakness: a top-rated defense, a pair of good passing targets and a strong running game. Cards defense catches a break with Panthers' offensive linemen Ryan Kalil and Jeff Otah out due to injury, and they'll be happy to have WR Anquan Boldin back from a sinus fracture that required surgery. Still, the Cardinals do very poorly away from Arizona. Panthers win and beat the four point spread.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers at Dallas Cowboys: The Boys have been miserable lately. With 40-year-old backup Brad Johnson quarterbacking for Dallas, Bucs will fill the box to prevent Marion Barber from running and take their chances that Johnson won't get it to Terrell Owens or Roy Williams. If he does, the Cowboys can break this open. That's a big if. Bucs win with the Cowboys in disarray. (Cowboys are favoured by 2.)

Washington Redskins at Detroit Lions: 'Skins are a very good team and RB Clinton Portis is a one-man scoring machine. The Lions are the king of suck. Detroit-area NFL fans will be spared the humiliation of watching the Lions lose because the game won't be televised; for the first time in 51 games, Ford Field is playing host to less than a capacity crowd. Washington QB Jason Campbell has not thrown an interception all year and Portis is averaging five yards per carry. Lots of pundits are dubious the 'Skins can beat the 7.5 point spread because their largest margin of victory so far this year has been seven points. But then, they haven't had the pleasure of facing the Lions.

Buffalo Bills at Miami Dolphins: Buffalo's Trent Edwards is looking like a seasoned veteran not a second year QB. He is making big plays when he needs to but doesn't get into the kind of trouble where he needs to make a lot of them. And Edwards is making WR Lee Evans look better than he really is. Edwards gets the opportunities to pass because defenses must always worry about the running threat of RB Marshawn Lynch. Bills win and beat the 1.5 spread even if their efficient but unspectacular defense doesn't stop Miami's Wildcat offense.

St. Louis Rams at New England Patriots: Rams are coming off back-to-back wins since changing coaches. The Pats are coming off their best game of the year. New England's D is finally looking good and Matt Cassel is hitting his passing targets. Patriots win and unlike the football pundits I'll take them to beat the 7 point spread.

San Diego Chargers and New Orleans Saints in London, England: Both teams are a disappointing 3-4. Chargers are coming off a loss in Buffalo where Philip Rivers wasn't passing like he has most of the year and LaDainian Tomlinson wasn't running like he has in past years. The Saints got thumped by Carolina 30-7. Either team could rebound, but the Chargers are the better team, especially with Reggie Bush out for the year for NO. Saints Drew Brees is the best QB in the NFL (didn't I predict that at the beginning of the season?) with 2,224 passing yards -- 400 more than anyone else. Rivers, though, is no slouch; he sports a 108.5 passer rating. The fans in London should expect a high scoring affair as both have terrible defenses.
Chargers win but don't cover the three-point spread.

Kansas City Chiefs at New York Jets: Which Jets show up? Does Brett Favre get to pass? Chiefs are using Tyler Thigpen, the backup to the backup quarterback and they are missing RB Larry Johnson who has been deactivated for personal reasons.
Jets win but they don't cover the 13 points.

Atlanta Falcons at Philadelphia Eagles: RB Brian Westrbook and WR Kevin Curtis are back for Philly. The Eagles are great at the blitz and will put tremendous pressure on rookie QB Matt Ryan. Philly may be 3-3 but when they are playing their best, they are one of the hardest teams to beat in the NFL. Despite the fact Atlanta is a surprising 4-2, the Eagles win handily and cover the 9 point spread.

Cleveland Browns at Jacksonville Jaguars: Someone called this the Disappointment Bowl. The Browns D is good and getting better but their offense is pretty close to non-existent. Derek Anderson is one of the worst starting QBs in the NFL (over the past three seasons he has 40 TD passes and 33 interceptions; this year 6 and six) and I can't believe he's still got his job. In the past three games we have finally seen what RB Maurice Jones-Drew is capable of for Jax and the Jags are getting healthier. David Garrard continues to impress as a game caller. No one is taking the Jags to beat the 7 point spread because every one of Jacksonville's games this year has been decided within a touchdown. That changes with this week's win.

Cincinnati Bengals at Houston Texans: The Texans have won two in a row against crummy teams. They'll make it three in a row, especially with QB Carson Palmer still out for Cincy. Ryan Fitzpatrick is a truly awful QB (2 TDs, 3 picks, 65.7 passer rating this year -- well above his career average). Texans WR Andre Johnson has emerged as a good receiver: 30 catches for 450 yards so far this month. QB Matt Schaub has been improving and is a steadier hand than he was at the start of the season. However, Houston has been allowing more than 29 points per game. Texans win but don't cover the 10-points.

New York Giants at Pittsburgh Steelers: Many football pundits are talking about this one as a possible preview to the Super Bowl. That's a little premature. Steelers defense is overwhelming and Giants QB Eli Manning has looked merely human over the past month, returning to the inconsistency that plagued him earlier in his career. But Giants defense is pretty darn good too (despite losing both of last year's starting tight ends) averaging five sacks per game. Pittsburgh needs their offensive line to prevent the Giants d-line from swarming Ben Roethlisberger. RB Willie Parker should return, providing running options if Big Ben is consistently under heavy pressure. Pittsburgh is favoured by three but the Giants look good enough to win.

Seattle Seahawks at San Francisco 49ers: Battle of two terrible NFC West teams, the 'Hawks would have been favoured before the season started but they have been awful. QB Matt Hasselbeck is out and Seattle is going with Seneca Wallace. Three key components of the defense -- Lofa Tatupu, Marcus Trufant and Patrick Kerney -- are playing injured. The wide receiver position has been a hospital ward merry-go-round. Seattle might have caught a small bit of luck with the Niners breaking in new head coach Mike Singletary, promoted from linebackers coach. Look for RB Frank Gore to return to form after an off weak. One pundit says "J.T. O'Sullivan gives the home side the edge." Another reminds readers of his weaknesses: "Nine fumbles, 10 interceptions, and 29 sacks." Does that tell you something about the instability of one or both of these teams? 49ers win in ugly one but I don't see them beating the 5.5 point spread.

Indianapolis Colts at Tennessee Titans: The struggling Colts meet the last undefeated team. Titans are 6-0 but haven't faced a challenge as strong as Indy even if the Colts are plagued by injuries; indeed, the Titans have yet to face a team that is above 500. The Titans defense smothers opposing offenses, but never count Peyton Manning out. He is best with his back against the wall. Tennessee is favoured by 4, but the Colts have won seven in a row in Monday Night games and Titans QB Kerry Collins has completed just 56% of his passes and has both 3 TDs and 3 picks. Colts pull off the upset.

Byes:

Chicago Bears: The Bears are the top scoring team in football. Time to show respect to QB Kyle Orton who has 10 TD passes in seven games. They should feast on the Lions when they return next week.

Minnesota Vikings: What happened? The defense didn't improve the way many expected after Minny opened their wallets in the off-season. They still have a below-average QB. At 3-4 they are only one game out of first but they seem so much farther from competing.

Green Bay Packers: QB Aaron Rodgers needs the week off and Green Bay will use the extra week off to prepare for the Titans when they return.

Denver Broncos: The Broncos are hurting physically and need the rest.
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:30 AM

 
Give Dan Gardner an award

He rips into celebrity pseudo-intellectual Margaret Atwood for the drivel she had published in the New York Times this week. Gardner writes:

"I think life would be sweet if I were Margaret Atwood.

'As for what will happen to us next, I have no safe answers,' Canada's queen of letters wrote this week about the credit crisis. Such humility. And did I mention this was in the New York Times, no less?

'If fair regulations are established and credibility is restored,' Ms. Atwood went on, 'people will stop walking around in a daze, roll up their sleeves and start picking up the pieces. Things unconnected with money will be valued more -- friends, family, a walk in the woods. "I" will be spoken less, "we" will return, as people recognize that there is such a thing as the common good.'

Otherwise, Peggy? What then? 'If fair regulations are not established and rebuilding seems impossible, we could have social unrest on a scale we haven't seen for years.'

Huh. OK.

I file three columns a week. On each of the mornings I am scheduled to deliver, my editor asks what I'm writing about. Not every column is a work of rigour and staggering insight. Yes, I know. But it's true. Happily, my editor cuts me slack when I'm off my game. I appreciate that.

But not even on a day when my editor's heart overflows with pity for his struggling columnist would he let me get away with such slack, lazy writing.

'Perhaps' -- my editor would suggest -- 'you should identify the 'fair regulations' of which you write. They seem quite remarkable. I'd like to hear more. You say they will cause people to value the common good and walks in the woods and the delighted laughter of children. Amazing. But how? I'm sure the answer is obvious but please elaborate for those who are not so clever as you...'"

Gardner goes on to add:

"If I were to submit slack, lazy writing to the New York Times, I would get an e-mail that would thank me for my submission but regret to inform me that the New York Times will not publish my slack, lazy writing. So would anyone not in line for a Nobel. But she's Margaret F***ing Atwood! No one tells Margaret Atwood her writing is slack and lazy and please try again.

Without criticism, slack and lazy writing inevitably gets slacker and lazier. Which explains much about Margaret Atwood's publicly expressed opinions."

The problem is that Atwood is given the kid-glove treatment, even by Ken Whyte at Maclean's. The elite in this country do not challenge the preposterous claims made by the novelist -- from her musings about the prescience of the Club of Rome to her attacks on Stephen Harper's scaling back of an increase in arts grants being the first stage of his 'dictatorship'. Gardner says: "Luke Skywalker doesn't question Yoda, the Apostles don't doubt Jesus, and journalists don't fact-check Margaret Atwood."
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:28 AM

 
Paper of record endorses liberal Democrat, loses all perspective

New York Times backs Barack Obama, beginning their editorial thusly:

"Hyperbole is the currency of presidential campaigns, but this year the nation’s future truly hangs in the balance."

Every election, we are told changes the face of America. Each of them, the partisans tell us, is vital. But as George Will counselled during the 1992 campaign, these are elections, not canonizations. They can be undone.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:23 AM

 
What's your doctor's VORP -- value over replacement physician

Writing in the New York Times, the leader of the GOP in the 1990s (Newt Gingrich), the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate (John Kerry) and the general manager of the Oakland A's (Billy Beane) says that Washington needs follow the Moneyball philosophy employed by the A's and abandon tradition (the status quo in health care delivery) to provide "evidence-based medicine." I'm not sure this is the answer to better or less expensive health care -- although it seems logical that it would -- but I couldn't resist linking to a column penned by Gingrich, Kerry and Beane.
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:12 AM

 
What I'm reading

1. The Heritage Foundation's 2008 Index of Government Dependency by William W. Beach.

2. Facts and Myths about the Financial Crisis of 2008, a Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Working Paper by V.V. Chari, Lawrence Christiano, and Patrick J. Kehoe.

3. The Future of Food: How Science Will Solve the Next Global Crises in the current issue of Wired.

4. Nuclear Deterrence in the Age of Nuclear Terrorism in the November/December issue of the M.I.T. Technology Review.

5. Two good articles on the recent election. The Cato Institutes's Will Wilkinson wrote in the Ottawa Citizen earlier this week to congratulate Canadian voters for staying home on October 14 and thus improving the outcome of democracy. And Rebecca Walberg wrote in yesterday's Edmonton Journal on what she calls the "untapped support among Canadian voters for social conservatism."
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:05 AM

 
Worst. List. Ever.

The Ten Best Egg Cups at The Independent.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:00 PM

 
Quote of the day

"Central Bankers never quite get right the balance between the supply and demand for money, just like the Soviets never quite got right the balance between producing left and right boots."
-- Publius at Gods of the Copybook Headings
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:22 PM

 
Cool stuff on YouTube

1. A great moment from Family Feud -- the orginal Feud with Richard Dawson in one of the most memorable moments in game show history.

2. Spongebob in China. Freaking hilarious. More about China than Spongebob.

3. The Rolling Stones performing Honky Tonk Woman live in Hyde Park 1969.

4. Take On Me: Literal Video Version -- song lyrics that match the video. There's also a Head Over Heels: Literal Video Version.

5. I'm not a John McCain fan but his speech at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner in New York was great and worth re-watching.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:20 PM

 
AGS revisited

Buffalo Bills 23, San Diego Chargers 14: I was wrong predicting the Chargers would beat the two-point spread. I saw this one live and it was thrilling. Rivers never really got his air game going and the Bills stopped the Bolts running game. A fourth quarter pick stopped a decent San Diego drive and prevented a come-from-behind victory. Bill beat their toughest competition of the year.

Carolina Panthers 30, New Orleans Saints 7: I predicted a Saint upset but the Panthers defense totally stopped Drew Brees. Saints lost Reggie Bush to a season-ending injury, too.

Chicago Bears 48, Minnesota Vikings 41: I thought that the Bears would win by three. I also thought Chicago's defense would keep this a low scoring affair.

Pittsburgh Steelers 38, Cincinnati Bengals 10: Correctly predicted the Steelers would beat the 9.5-point spread.

Tennessee Titans 34, Kansas City Chiefs 10: I said the "Titans smothering defense will prevent the Chiefs from scoring but their own 24th ranked offense makes it a longshot to beat the 9-point margin." Oops. KC has been outscored 68-10 in their past two games.

Baltimore Ravens 27, Miami Dolphins 13: I wrongly thought the Fins would get the upset. Baltimore stopped Miami's Wildcat offense.

New York Giants 29, San Francisco 49ers 17: Why I am not showing the Giants the love. I said, "I don't buy a Giants win by ten-and-half." Still, despite the wins, it looks like the mediocre Eli Manning of old rather than the budding superstar that showed in the closing stretch of 2007, last year's playoffs and the first three or four games this season.

St. Louis Rams 34, Dallas Cowboys 14: What the heck?

Houston Texans 28, Detroit Lions 21: Here's what I said: "Normally you don't take a team like the Texans to beat the nine-point spread, but this week you do." Detroit scored 11 fourth-quarter points to make it close, but they are looking like a team that is destined for 0-16.

Green Bay Packers 34, Indianapolis Colts 14: I thought Indy would win. Green Bay played a solid game and scored two TDs on interceptions which inflated the Packers' score. QB Aaron Rodgers had his third consecutive game with a 100+ passer rating and fifth of the year.

Oakland Raiders 16, New York Jets 13 (OT): I thought the Jets would win. They didn't. Again the Jets, who obtained Brett Favre in the off-season, went with the running game: 242 net rushing yards, 176 net passing yards. Raiders scored a 56-yard field goal with 2:06 left in OT.

Washington Redskins 14, Cleveland Browns 11: I thought the Skins would win by more than seven but they only eked out a field goal victory. Washington RB Clinton Portis (27 plays, 175 yards, a touchdown) is making a case for offensive player of the year and he could be an MVP candidate if Washington wins the division.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers 20, Seattle Seahawks 10: Here is what I said: "Tampa by 10.5? That's a lot and it isn't a bet I'd take even though I won't be surprised to see the Bucs do it. That's called hedging, folks." They won by 10. Now you understand my hedging. The 'Hawks are pretty awful, providing a disappointing final lap for coach Mike Holmgren.

New England Patriots 41, Denver Broncos 7: I said the Pats as the football pundits were predicting the Broncs. Pats played their best game all year. Injuries are piling up, but it was a good sign that the defense, which has been disappointing all year, held the high-flying Broncos to just one TD. QB Matt Cassel connected with Randy Moss for two TDs and Wes Walker for another. The Buffalo Bills should start looking over their shoulder.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:06 PM

 
If you are going to attack Obama over Ayers

This is how you do it. Scare the hell out of independent voters over Barack Obama's radicalism. I don't think it matters anymore, but because John McCain doesn't provide a compelling case to Americans to vote for him, he might as well consider an ad that forces Americans to reconsider their support for his opponent.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:38 AM

 
Back to blogging some time next week

Super busy because next week is production week at The Interim. Also, I'm off to Buffalo on Sunday for the Buffalo Bills and San Diego Chargers game. It's my first football game, so it should be fun.
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:06 AM

 
Any given Sunday










San Diego Chargers at Buffalo Bills: Chargers are on a hot streak and have everything going their way and Philip Rivers has become an excellent QB, deftly moving the offense. The emergence of Rivers as a great game caller means San Diego relies less on the running game and that is as much the reason for RB LaDainian Tomlinson's poorer stats this year as LT's broken toe. The Bills are coming off their bye week so are rested, especially important after losing QB Trent Edwards for a game due to a concussion. Buffalo is adept at stopping the run but not so great at stopping the passing game, which is what Rivers will employ to get the job done. Bolts win and should beat the two-point spread.

New Orleans Saints at Carolina Panthers: Last week, the Bucs showed that the Panthers defense wasn't what was advertised. Or at the very least, they demonstrated that it could be beat. The Saints and QB Drew Brees are even better poised to rack up the points, especially with WR Marques Colston and TE Jeremy Shockey likely to return. Saints win despite the odds-makers favouring the Panthers.

Minnesota Vikings at Chicago Bears: The Vikings haven't lived up to their billing, something that happens when otherwise good teams don't have good quarterbacks. Chicago's defense is good and its offense, led by ... I can't believe I'm saying this ... QB Kyle Orton, is more than adequate. The Bears are always tough in their den. Bears win but don't beat the 3-point spread.

Pittsburgh Steelers at Cincinatti Bengals: Pittsburgh might be hurting but the Bengals are the Bengals. Steelers beat the 9.5-point spread.

Tennessee Titans at Kansas City Chiefs: Titans smothering defense will prevent the Chiefs from scoring but their own 24th ranked offense makes it a longshot to beat the 9-point margin.

Baltimore Ravens at Miami Dolphins: Ravens defense is pretty good but Miami has got its act together, with innovative offensive plays and a defense that stops the running game. That means the Ravens will need underwhelming rookie QB Joe Flacco to make good passes, something he has not shown a consistent ability to do. Miami should pull off their third victory in four games.

San Francisco 49ers at New York Giants: Last week's defeat at the hands of the Browns notwithstanding, the Giants are one of the best teams in the NFL and should have no trouble exacting revenge after last week's loss. But the Niners have an offense capable of scoring so I don't buy a Giants win by ten-and-half.

Dallas Cowboys at St. Louis Rams: Boys QB Tony Romo is reportedly going to play with a broken pinky finger. Addition of WR Roy Williams from the Lions adds another passing target for Romo -- if he can pass. Sure the Rams beat the Skins last week, but Washington dominated the game and St. Louis scored because of Skins turnovers. Don't expect Dallas to cough up the ball three times. Dallas wins and covers the seven points.

Detroit Lions at Houston Texans: The Texans haven't been very impressive this year, but the Lions are comprehensively awful. They don't have their best two players: WR Roy Williams was sent to Dallas for draft picks and QB Jon Kitma is on the shelf. Lions are finally admitting they are rebuilding. Normally you don't take a team like the Texans to beat the nine-point spread, but this week you do.

Indianapolis Colts at Green Bay Packers: Not sure what Packers team will show up. Not sure what Colts will show up. Edge goes to the Colts who have the better QB (Peyton Manning) and healthier squad (which is saying a lot). Indy is favoured by one. They better that.

New York Jets at Oakland Raiders: Brett Favre has hit his groove and the Raiders are a mess. Jets beat the three-point spread.

Cleveland Browns at Washington Redskins: Some people think the 'real' Browns have finally arrived because they've won two in a row. One of those games were against the Bengals so that doesn't count. The Browns offense is improving but the Skins, when they are on, are as good as anyone in the league. They beat the Browns by more than 7 points.

Seattle Seahawks at Tampa Bay Bucanners: Bucs are the better team and playing at home and will beat a 'Hawks team that has battled injuries to their receivers and haven't really been able to put things together this year. Now they are without their game caller Matt Hasselbeck. But Tampa by 10.5? That's a lot and it isn't a bet I'd take even though I won't be surprised to see the Bucs do it. That's called hedging, folks.

Denver Broncos at New England Patriots: The Broncos can score and the Pats defense hasn't been that strong so I expect QB Jay Cutler to find a way to put points on the board. But the Pats are still a very good team (WRs Wes Walker, Randy Moss) which will use more of its underemployed running game to keep Culter off the field, so I expect New England to win at home. Pats are favoured by three but a lot of pundits are questioning that, in part because the Broncos have beat the Patriots in five of their past six meetings in Foxboro. Not this time.

Byes:

Arizona Cardinals: At 4-2, they have at least a two-game lead on San Fran and the rest of the division. After not playing this week, they'll still be on top of the NFC West.

Atlanta Falcons: They are tied for the NFC South lead at 4-2, matching their win total for 2007. Do they even want this rest and break their momentum?

Jacksonville Jaguars: This is the first of four consecutive bye weeks because their next three opponents are Cleveland, Cincinatti and Detroit.

Philadelphia Eagles: Although they are 3-3, the Eagles are at the bottom of the NFC East and need to regroup.
posted by Paul Tuns at 7:49 AM

 
Calgary Grit exposes the sources

Calgary Grit has an amusing post:

"You Too, Can Be An Anonymous Liberal!

Do you have a grievance? Not happy with someone else in the Liberal Party? Wanna float your buddy's name for leadership? Sure, you could speak out. But why do that when you can be an anonymous Liberal...

But how should you identify yourself? Not by your name or title, silly. Here’s a handy guide:

Influential Liberal: You know a former Cabinet Minister. Or you once met a Cabinet Minister. Or you once saw a Cabinet Minister at a convention.

Senior Party Member: You’re over 30.

Liberal Insider: You were a poll captain on your local Liberal campaign.

A well connected Liberal: You’re friends with Warren Kinsella on facebook.

Veteran Liberal: You’ve been bitching about the party’s leader since Turner.

A Liberal source: While you may not have voted Liberal this time, you have in the past.

Liberal Strategist: You've criticized the party's strategy over beers."

Gone are the days when a "Liberal source" was either Ray Heard or anyone from Martin's inner circle.
posted by Paul Tuns at 7:14 PM

 
Bob Rae as Liberal leadership contender

Not as disastrous for the Grits as people think. Damian Penny says of the idea, "I can't see the Liberals committing political suicide by making one of the most unpopular premiers in Ontario history the party leader." Yes, but he was an unpopular NDP premier and now he would be leader of the Liberals. Different creature. Furthermore, about one-third of present-day Ontario was either not here during the NDP reign of error or weren't of voting age. Of the two-thirds who were here, many of them have short political memories. And many others will see an older Rae in red as a step up from the younger orange and green Rae.

The idea of Rae as Liberal leader is not as crazy as it sounds. I know many Tories who are eager to face a Rae-led Liberal team in the next election but that is a mistake. Rae is articulate and passionate, he can provide a hopeful vision for the future, and he knows how politics works. He wouldn't pull a hissy-fit and not talk to the Liberal pollster for ten months if he disagreed with the pollster's advice. He wouldn't wait until the eve of the election call to have a campaign plane ready. He wouldn't highlight his leadership rivals as part of the Liberal team, giving them a platform to build their profiles and reputations. He wouldn't fire the people with two and three decades of Parliamentary experience and bring in his own people -- actually he would, but those people would also have two and three decades of political experience themselves. Politics isn't for amateurs, and Rae has been doing it for a long time. Dion was a cabinet minister for a decade and didn't seem to pick up how Ottawa works.

I would also guess that Rae would be in for the long haul, perfectly happy losing the next election, before eventually winning, and thus would build the Liberal Party back up rather than risk hurting the Grits for a long-shot chance at early victory. I don't think the same can be said for most of the other Liberals who want to lead: Michael Ignatieff wants to do things, wants to govern; Frank McKenna (if he is really interested) won't be keen on giving up his corporate jobs in exchange for a long-time in the political wilderness; others certainly want to restore Liberal hegemony quickly. But Rae knows what it is like to bide one's time and build for eventual success.

In short, I think Rae would be a formidable leader for the Liberals and tough opponent for the Conservatives. Rae is a lot like Jean Chretien -- he has politics in his bones and his instincts serve him well. The political right in this country underestimated Chretien for a long time. It would wise for them to not make the same mistake with Rae.
posted by Paul Tuns at 7:04 PM

 
Watch Tyranny of Nice authors on Michael Coren

YouTube video and links on Five Feet of Fury.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:52 AM

 
How to stay sane

Tyler Cowen has four ways and asks readers to add one of their own. Cowen's list: "I try to listen to beautiful music at least once a day, I don't check my portfolio even in the best of times, I hug a loved one at least one more time than was expected (with adaptive expectations this is hard to sustain over time but I have my tricks), and also I avoid television advertisements as much as possible." The readers provide an interesting and diverse list, from reading Chesterton to exercise to pharmaceutical (or other) drugs. Considering the libertarian bent of Cowen's blog, I am a bit surprised that 'not caring' seems to be an option people overlook. On most days I'd fall into that category, but on others sanity is maintained by 'perspective': by any historical or geographical standard almost everyone in the Western world lives comfortably compared to those in the past and the people who are barely surviving in much of the developing world today. My problems and the issues we in Canada face are insignificant by comparison. And then I go back to not caring.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:15 AM

 
Herald against s.329 of the Elections Act

The Halifax Herald editorializes against the archaic s.329 of the Elections Act -- the secion that states:

"No person shall transmit the result or purported result of the vote in an electoral district to the public in another electoral district before the close of all of the polling stations in that other electoral district."

The Herald says the law cannot be enforced, but more importantly the rationale is dubious:

"It’s also hard to argue knowing the results of Atlantic Canada’s 32 seats would cause B.C. voters to stay home."

Or otherwise change their voting behaviour. Considering the staggered voting schedules, there would relatively few people who would vote in the final hour or so. Or choose so late in the day to note vote. I find it hard that anyone interested enough to watch the results would be moved to vote (or not vote) a particular way simply because of a handful of results in the East. More importantly, I doubt that enough people would be so affected as to alter the final results in a single riding, let alone the makeup of Parliament.

But back to enforceability. Again, I point you to Stephen Taylor's excellent post against s.329:

"What is to stop an Atlantic Canadian from updating her twitter status as to the result of her Newfoundland riding? Or the Prince Edward Islander from posting who is in the lead on his Facebook wall? Since the possible forums for national broadcast have gone from a limited three television networks to practically limitless social media outlets, this particular provision of the Elections Act is de facto unenforceable."

Taylor concludes:

"[T]he law does not reflect reality and must be changed. What remains to be seen is whether change will come from mass social media violation of s.329 or through the legislative process."

My guess is that there must be mass violations of the law before this provision is amended.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:14 PM

 
What?

Unless she has access to some polling that proves this, I can't believe this sentence by Canadian Press' Joan Bryden:

"One of a series of gaffes that bedevilled the Tory campaign -- Calgary incumbent Lee Richardson's suggestion that immigrants are more likely to be involved in crime -- actually boosted the party's numbers in the suburbs and exurbs of Toronto."
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:56 PM

 
Layton's insane argument

NDP leader Jack Layton said:

"I think he should realize that far more Canadians voted against his government than voted for it. He should respect Parliament and respect the results of the election, and we'll proceed in the recognition of that fact."

To be clear, this is what Layton is saying: Stephen Harper should abandon those who voted for the Conservatives and govern for those who voted against him.
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:50 PM

 
Paul Wells on the Liberals

I don't often quote Paul Wells. Often he is too cute by half. But he is absolutely right about this:

"CalgaryGrit on the new, more compact Liberal caucus:

'The one bright spot in this is that it will be a small, but impressive, Liberal caucus. Dion, Rae, Ignatieff, Kennedy, Dryden, Hall Findlay, Goodale, Dosanjh, Trudeau, Garneau, LeBlanc, Dhalla, Holland…I could name a dozen more quality MPs easily.'

It is easy to quibble with any of the names Dan mentions, but take the broad point. These people are grownups.

Is it too much to ask, then, that they act like grownups in the next Parliament?

I’m not talking about decorum. Tempers will rise and insults will fly. But on the long list of complete Liberal failures in the last Parliament was an inability to take the long view; to look past tonight’s national newscasts and the apparently overwhelming need to get a clip of a barking MP onto them; to remember last week’s story and keep reminding Canadians of it; to build a narrative, using the simple crafts of storytelling, about the government they faced and the government they wanted to become; to use supportas strategically as contention; to notice when one day was different from others and use a variety of techniques to spread that message among Canadians; to develop a communications strategy more sophisticated than firing off six identical emails a day to the automatic-delete sections of 100 reporters’ emailboxes (”Minister X is letting Canadians down on xxxxx by his performance on file yyyyyy, said Official Opposition Whatsis Critic zzzzzz. ‘I see here in the Globe that frumf frumf frumf frummp,’ Mr. zzzzzz said….”).

Here is some gentle counsel for the next Liberal caucus, from a guy who watched the last Liberal caucus: if you discover you’re devoting 80% of your energy in Ottawa to Question Period, then soon enough you’ll look back at 2008 as a high point."
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:14 PM

 
Left can't wait 'til January to get power

Two guys from the Harvard Business School have a plan to make Barack Obama president before the Electoral College convenes:

"The present January inaugural date is fixed by the 20th Amendment to the Constitution. Changing that would take years, not days.

But there is a way out - if our political leaders are smart, courageous, and public-spirited enough to take it.

Assume that Barack Obama wins the election, as polls show is increasingly likely. The following day, Vice President Cheney should be prevailed upon to resign. Using his powers to designate a successor under the 25th Amendment, President Bush should then appoint, and Congress should confirm, Obama as vice president (just as Richard Nixon appointed Gerald Ford vice president in 1973 when Spiro Agnew resigned). Bush himself should then resign, elevating Obama to the presidency - as Ford became president when Nixon resigned. Obama should then appoint Joe Biden as vice president.

With Congress's confirmation of Biden, the new administration would be in place, on the job, and ready to tackle the economic crisis - in November, not January. (The electoral college's official ratification of the election results in December would merely rubber-stamp the transition.)"

(HT: The Corner)
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:52 PM

 
The award for best commentary on the election goes to...

Robert Fulford. Here is his basic argument:

"The market crisis was only one of the problems besetting the Conservatives, and not necessarily the worst. Two other obstacles stood in their way. One was the traditional Canadian attitude toward Conservatives. The other was Stephen Harper."

About problem number one for the Tories, Fulford says:

"[M]uch of the electorate, maybe two-thirds, accepts the left-liberal approach to national affairs and embraces big government as the norm. These voters consider right-wing politicians automatically suspect, perhaps slightly illegitimate. Sometimes Canadians defeat the Liberals but even then we embrace Conservatives only if they look and act as little like conservatives as possible."

That means more centrist pap from the Harper Conservatives. Or is that 'Harper Conservatives [sic]'? After all, they can't win if they act like conservatives. That's a problem, although the Harperites tell us they have a plan.

About Harper, Fulford says:

"From the beginning, he has acted as if his kind of government is not only right but self-evidently right. He assumes (his manner demonstrates it) he's taken the wisest course in every field from foreign policy to taxation, and that everyone should agree. His followers find that reassuring, but his stance does nothing to make converts.

It is in the delicate matter of stance, the quality produced by the mingling of political goals and personal feelings under the pressure of circumstances, that the Conservatives have appeared least attractive. In the everyday business of government, their style looks austere and rigid. Tonally, they are inhibited and joyless. Mr. Harper himself projects a strangely mundane quality. Even in his own words, the Conservative program rarely sounds better than competent. No one would argue that competence is unimportant, but when it goes slightly wrong it emerges as mediocrity.

Mr. Harper's presentation of himself registers as remarkably unambitious. If Mr. Mulroney was far too ambitious (setting out, ruinously, to solve the problem of Quebec sovereignty forever), Mr. Harper has been too timid in the goals he's set for himself and the country. It's hard to consider anything he accomplishes as particularly challenging to the voters. He's been more effective denouncing his opponents than explaining his own program's virtues. Too often, while holding the office of prime minister, he's sounded more like someone seeking it."

That's some damn good punditry. Read it again because it is more insight than the average newspaper offers up in a week. Yet, there seems to be a contradiction in what Fulford wants. Canada doesn't trust conservatives but Fulford wants Harper to articulate his (presumably) conservative views more clearly. Perhaps that would help move the country rightward. Perhaps. Or maybe it scares the country away.

Fulford says Harper "leaves the impression that he thinks the really crucial job of the Conservatives is to keep the Liberals out of power." It is possible that is all there is in the way of the Harper agenda. Maybe that is the plan. Perhaps the Tories just want to stop the leftward ratchet of Canadian politics. That's not Fulford's conclusion, but it is where his observations can lead readers. For many conservatives, keeping Liberals out of power is, or at least should be, too modest of a goal.

For Fulford's part, he says Harper lacked passion and that is the Conservative leader's problem. Harper might be an emotionally distant WASP -- probably is -- but his emotional detachment might also be part of the strategy to paint the Conservative brand as safe and moderate. Whether it works is unknowable. If you think that is a smart strategy, you point to 143 seats and say it worked. If you don't like it, you point to the 12 seats the Tories are short of a majority and say it didn't. Analysis is often biased by one's views. I'll stick by my admitted unsatisfying analysis that we don't know, and can't know, whether an emotionless Harper is a good strategy.

Righteous indignation and joyful hope are two emotions that often do work in politics. Harper hasn't effectively tried either. But stoicism is part of Harper's problem, but only part. Remember the first part of Fulford's column: Canada doesn't like conservatism, or at least conservatives. A passionate Harper cannot change that.

All that said, Fulford's column is the best political commentary running this morning in the mainstream media.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:11 AM

 
An election post-mortem

The Calgary Herald editorializes:

"So near, yet so far. It was not the majority Prime Minister Stephen Harper wanted, but he should still take Tuesday's much strengthened minority as a healthy mandate to govern.

For this election was, at its root, a referendum on leadership. By a convincing margin, Canadians have decided he is better able to lead Canada through difficult economic times than Liberal Leader Stephane Dion."

This is stark contrast to the broadcast commentary last night of 'why bother?'

I would suggest that Prime Minister Stephen Harper use the renewed mandate to get something done. For years I've heard about the 10 or 20 year plan that Harperites have to move the country rightward; they might not have that long. Part of the problem, it must be said is Quebec. The province's collective values are far to the left of the rest of the country. (Take out Quebec and polls on Afghanistan are evenly divided. Take out the Quebec MPs and same-sex marriage would have been defeated in Parliament in 2004. And one could keep listing issues on which Quebec opinion or the representatives of Quebec voters veer to the left when the rest of the country sits in the center or even on the right.) If, as it seems, Quebec voters didn't like Stephen Harper because he wanted to reduce arts funding, we (small-c conservatives) have a long way to go. I don't buy that Quebec turned against the Tories over (just) arts funding; this particular storyline is polite code for 'Quebec is a bunch of statists'. One should never say never, but one cannot easily foresee that the Tories can win enough seats without Quebec for a solid majority or that it can win a significant number of seats in Quebec to break through that magic 155 ceiling.

So what now? Probably not much. Harper will be hailed as the man who delivered a pair of minority governments and gained seats for the party in three successive elections. That is impressive. Remember in 2003, it was suggested he would never be prime minister and with the coming Martin juggernaut, we were in for another decade in the political wilderness. Yet, there will be questions about whether he has hit a ceiling. I'd say he is close, that the real ceiling is 150-160 seats. I would guess that in his quest for those additional dozen seats to a majority Harper will play it exceedingly cautious, which means the necessary reforms to taxes and programs (to reduce them both) isn't on the agenda.

Across the aisle, it is only a matter of time until Stephane Dion is showed the door and is replaced with someone ... well, competent. The Conservative victory was perhaps less a win for the Tories than a Liberal loss due to Dion's weakness as leader. What happens to the Tories when someone who can speak English fluently is chosen as Liberal leader? When that person can articulate a hopeful vision for the future of the nation? Or adequately address the fears people have about the future? When the Liberal leader understands the cut-throat nature of politics? What happens when the Liberal leader can unite more of the progressive vote in this country? The long-term Harper plan is to squeeze the Liberals from the right while the NDP takes votes from the Grits on the left. That happened this time, but there is no guarantee that happens next time or every time. The low Liberal standing right now is not the result of some great realignment in politics but rather a reflection of Dion's uninspired -- actually non-existent -- leadership.

The NDP once again failed to make the big breakthrough they thought possible, but 37 seats is not unimpressive. NDPers will claim victory even if it wasn't the victory they had mind. Jack Layton, the urban socialist, won in Newfoundland and northern Ontario. Not bad.

The Greens, predictably, did not win the seat some pundits were (ludicrously) suggesting they could. They will need a leader that understands that they are a political party before they can make the modest steps to 10% overall in the polls. Yet again, they didn't live up to their pre-election day polling.

The Bloc remains as a protest party against whoever is in power. They might lose some support when their popular leader Gilles Duceppe decides he has had enough of Ottawa politics. We are often told this is right around the corner, but he seemed to be enjoying himself during this past campaign. I wouldn't bet on him leaving any time soon.

The political map has changed, and in some short-term ways significantly, but the politics will be the same: cautious Harper not doing much, the Bloc screaming about how Ottawa is encroaching on the rights of Quebec, the NDP claiming to represent working Canadians and railing against big business, and the Liberals apparently lost (as they always are when not in power) looking for a strong leader who no doubt will ride in on his white horse sometime next year. And Canadians get to enjoy another round of the most entertaining sport on earth: politics.

Why bother? Why not?
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:58 AM

 
CBC coverage

Why does David Frum lead readers of his NRO blog to the CBC story on the election? That story, by the way, has an unusual lead for the national broadcaster's omnibus story on the election results: "Two prominent faces in Conservative Leader Stephen Harper's previous caucus will be missing in Ottawa as a result of Tuesday's election. Voters rejected former cabinet minister Michael Fortier's bid in Quebec and booted Rahim Jaffer from his Alberta riding." The Tories increased their seat total by nearly 20 should be the lead. Or Tories fail to win a majority. Or Stephane Dion's job is insecure. Or Justin Trudeau wins his Papineau seat. But what does the CBC lead with? A non-incumbent (Fortier) and a backbench MP (Jaffer) not winning their seats.
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:20 AM