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.

 
Buy Gerry's book



















Gerry Nicholls, the former vice president of the National Citizens' Coalition, has penned a book that is one part memoir, one part history of the NCC, one part clarion call to the conservative movement, and it promises to be the must-read Canadian politics book of 2009 -- and I mean that as a compliment. You can order Loyal To The Core: Stephen Harper, Me And The NCC, here.

It is published by Freedom Press Canada Inc., which released my Jean Chretien: A Legacy of Scandal in 2004. If you don't have a copy of Jean Chretien, it's price has recently been reduced to $11.95.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:15 PM

 
On the value of literature

From Joseph Epstein's ISI lecture, "A Literary Education," last May:

"One of the most important functions of literature in the current day is to cultivate a healthy distrust of the ideas thrown up by journalism and social science. Novels and poems can be the antidote here. “The novel’s spirit is the spirit of complexity,” Milan Kundera writes. 'The novelist says to the reader: things are not as simple as you think.' When he is working well, the good novelist persuasively establishes that life is more surprising, bizarre, fascinating, complex, and rich than any shibboleth, concept, or theory used to explain it. A literary education establishes a strong taste for the endless variousness of life; it teaches how astonishing reality is—and how obdurate to even the most ingenious attempts to grasp its mechanics or explain any serious portion of it! 'A man is more complicated than his thoughts,' wrote Valéry, which, if you think about it, is happily so."

You can watch the entire lecture, here.
posted by Paul Tuns at 3:22 AM

 
15 predictions for 2009

15. Barack Obama will be centrist on economic and foreign policy 80% of the time. Admittedly, the centre has moved leftward over the past eight months ...

14. Congress will approve another $35 billion for the U.S. automakers within the next 12 months.

13. U.S. President Barack Obama will maintain popularity numbers over 50% throughout 2009.

12. Kim Jong Il, whether by death, retirement or coup, will not be the leader of North Korea by the end of the year.

11. Russia will not invade any of its neighbours in 2009

10. Neither the United States nor Israel will bomb Iran.

9. The California Supreme Court will overturn Proposition 8, the voter-approved constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriages.

8. The GM Volt will not be delivered to dealers by year's end.

7. There will not be a federal election in Canada. Stephen Harper will still be prime minister come 2010.

6. Notable papers announcing major restructuring and/or sizable layoffs will include the New York Times, Detroit News, National Post, Vancouver Sun, Chicago Tribune and Miami Herald.

5. While Likud will win the most seats in Israel's parliamentary election, Benjamin Netanyahu will not be prime minister.

4. The New York Yankees will finish first in the AL East and make it to the World Series.

3. The Guantanamo Bay detention camp will still be operational by year's end although the administration will announce a 'target' date by which all prisoners will be removed from the facility.

2. The Obama administration will announce that 50% of U.S. troops in Iraq will be gone by January 1, 2012.

1. The Dow Jones will fall below 8000 at some point this year.
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:29 AM

 
Cool things on YouTube

1. Stringfever's 'history of music'.




2. The Unborn Band cover of Mr. Brightside -- which is probably better than the original by The Killers.




Rob Paravonian's American Idol Loser Song (quite funny).



4. Four million dominoes.


posted by Paul Tuns at 12:26 AM

 
Three and out

3. The Los Angeles Angels don't seem to be interested in Manny Ramirez any longer, the Los Angeles Dodgers have withdrawn their two-year deal in the $50 million vicinity, and the Boston Red Sox aren't going to bring him back because they are tired of Manny being Manny. Unless he takes a big pay cut to sign with a club that might want to spend $15 million per season to put people in the seats such as the Texas Rangers or perhaps the Tampa Bay Rays who need a power bat and has room at DH, it would appear that the only team that would have the money, positional room and inclination to put up with ManRam is the New York Yankees. That is partially wishful thinking on my part (and Hank Steinbrenner), it is hard to see who else he might sign with.

2. The New York Mets who seemed to be interested in acquiring Andruw Jones from the LA Dodgers, have come to their senses about trading for a rapidly declining centerfielder with a $15 million price tag for 2009. In 2008 he hit a measly 158 for the Dodgers. This makes even less sense considering they already have one of the best centerfielders in the game in Carlos Beltran. Moving the unproductive bat of Jones to the corner outfield position would make even less sense.

1. Rich Lederer and Patrick Sullivan at the Baseball Analysts have a Christmas wish list for various players, teams and baseball entities, including this one: for the Toronto Blue Jays and Baltimore Orioles "to play in another division." But why? If the Tampa Bay Rays can win the division and make it to the World Series despite a payroll about one-sixth of the Yankees, why can't the Blue Jays do better with a payroll about one-third the size? It isn't about revenues, or about just revenues, but about talent and talent evaluation. The Yankees haven't done a great job of the latter in recent years. But the Jays and Orioles have done much, much worse.
posted by Paul Tuns at 4:34 PM

 
Four and down

4. I totally agree with this comment in the ESPN Power Rankings: "If the Jets and Cowboys weren't in such big markets, people around the country would be talking about Tampa Bay's collapse. As it is, folks in Florida are griping about a team that went from 9-3 to missing the playoffs." I'd say there about a 50-50 chance that coach Jon Gruden is looking for a new job next season.

3. Gruden might be a good fit for the New York Jets who canned Eric Mangini on Black Monday (three coaches were fired yesterday). Mangini might make good game plans but but lacks the ability to change on the fly. Gruden is more resourceful and would use a more balanced offense than Mangini's run-reliant game did.

2. The Washington Redskins finished with a 500 record but they look like a team that needs major repairs to have a chance to contend in 2009.

1. It is surprising that Buffalo Bills coach Bill Jauron was not among the fired coaches on Monday. After his third consecutive 7-9 season with the Bills, he has demonstrated that his long experience as a coach and co-ordinator doesn't mean much. In fact, what he has experience with is losing, putting up sub-500 records with every club (Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions and Bills) he has headed. He is 57-76 over his nine full or part seasons, with just one year at 500 or better (13-3 with the Bears in 2001). If he stays with the Bills, they deserve their mediocrity; as will anyone who signs Jauron if the Bills let him go.
posted by Paul Tuns at 4:31 PM

 
Supporting the 'status quo'
Or, why a fetus is like a cell phone plan

Over at ProWomanProLife, Tanya Zaleski, quotes abortion advocate Joyce Arthur: "Canadians don’t want to go back to the abortion debate. People are happy with the status quo. It’s working well." Zaleski goes on to say:

"I just changed my cell phone plan. I had the same plan for years, and I thought it was a great deal, mainly because it was a great deal back when I got my first phone. I’d tell everyone how great my plan was, and in 2002 I wasn’t lying. But in 2008, I was sorely misled. After doing a little homework, I learned I could get all the same services with the exact same cell phone provider for about half the price. All this to say, I was happy with the status quo until I got all the facts."

Maybe Canadians support only what they think is the status quo and they are doing so in ignorance because people like Joyce Arthur prevent an information-based discussion on the topic. Many people, for example, do not know that a woman can have an abortion for any reason, at any time until birth, usually paid for by the taxpayer. Many think there are gestational limits. Most would recoil at the eugenic nature of many late-term abortions, designed to eliminate those with Down Syndrome. Also, many people are ignorant about the gruesomeness of the abortion procedure. But once people learn the truth about abortion and abortion law, many begin to look askance at it. Which is why the likes of Joyce Arthur do everything they can to prevent a real discussion of the issue.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:36 AM

 
On (an academic's) travel

Tyler Cowen answers the question of why he hasn't been to Portugal:

"The first reason is intertemporal substitution, namely that I often wait for people to pay me to go places. In general this factor leads small countries, especially with Romance languages, or in geographic corners, to be visited late. The small country has a bigger place in your mind's eye than it does on the conference and lecture circuit. The American Midwest ends up being overvisited, as does New Orleans, and Nova Scotia ends up being undervisited (I want very much to go there).

If you are invited to a lot of talks and conferences, your non-work travel should avoid centrally located hub cities and focus on poor corners, such as Albania and Yemen. You'll get to Paris and London anyway.

That said, I have an invitation to Portugal for this April and I will be going. Since I'm not sure I need to go twice, I am glad I waited."
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:05 AM

 
Probably true for most people

Gideon Rachman, the chief foreign affairs commentator at the Financial Times, begins a recent blog post thusly: "Usually, when I sit down to make a list it is a form of procrastination." I am not saying that making a list of things to do is bad, but I think that for many people, lists and other forms of 'planning' are too often a means of putting off what must be done; and for some, much smaller number of people, the planning is often the main thing -- the action item, so to speak. Of course, the list Rachman is making isn't a to-do list, but a peak at the top stories of the year which is quite another matter.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:59 AM

 
Geographic distribution of ten terrible things

Medicines sans Frontieres has a list of the 10 worst humanitarian disasters of 2008 and it is notable that five are happening in Africa, three are occurring in Asia (Pakistan, Iraq, Mynmar) and another two are global but disproportionately affect Africa (childhood malnutrition and HIV/TB co-infections). So seven of the ten worst humanitarian disasters are happening in Africa. In the Congo and Somalia, the problem is that there is effectively no government whereas in Zimbabwe and Sudan, the problem is that there is too much government.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:52 AM

 
AGS revisited

Carolina Panthers 33, New Orleans Saints 31: Drew Brees was going for Dan Marino's single-season yardage record -- Brees threw the ball 49 times (30 completions) for 386 yards, to finish just 15 yards short of the 5,084 he needed for the milestone. The Panthers, who needed the win to secure the second seed in the conference, led 30-10 going into the fourth quarter. The Saints score three TDs and lead 31-30 with just over three minutes left in the game and kick the ball to the Panthers own one yard line. Jake Delhomme leads a seven-play, 57-yard drive in just over three minutes. With six seconds left on the clock, John Kasay makes a 42-yard field goal to win the game and clinch second in the NFC. I correctly predicted the Panthers would win but not cover the three point spread.

Houston Texans 31, Chicago Bears 24: The Bears were up 10-0 going into the second quarter but the Texans scored the next 21 points. Houston was up 31-17 at the two-minute warning, so the game isn't as close as the score might indicate; Bears had just 22 minutes of possession. I predicted the Texans would win, but that the game would be closer.

Pittsburgh Steelers 31, Cleveland Browns 0: QB Ben Roethlisberger suffered a concussion just before half-time and left the field on a stretcher and the stadium in an ambulance. The Steelers scored 14 points with him in the first half and 17 points without him in the second. The Browns set a new NFL record by not scoring an offensive TD in 24 quarters (six games). I predicted the Steelers would cover the 10.5 point spread.

Green Bay Packers 31, Detroit Lions 21: The Lions were tyring to avoid becoming the first team to go 0-16 and the Packers were trying not to be the only team to lose to the comprehensively bad Lions. Packers got ahead 14-0 in the first quarter but went into half-time with that lead cut by half. The game was tied going into the fourth quarter before the Packers scored 10 points. The Lions scored a touchdown with just over a minute left. Hearts were racing on both sides: could the Lions come back? No. WR Donald Driver put the icing on the cake by scoring on a 71 yard play with 16 seconds left. I said the Packers would 'easily' beat the 9 point spread -- they beat it but not easily and not by much. Aaron Rodgers was great: 21 of 31 for 308 yards (in Green Bay!) for three TDs and a 132.2 passer rating. The Packers might have been 6-10 but it wasn't because they were Favreless.

Cincinnati Bengals 16, Kansas City Chiefs 6: I thought Cincy would win but that it would be closer. Chiefs had a total of 31 rushing yards. First time the Bengals have scored more than 14 points since the first game after Halloween and they close out the season with three straight wins.

New York Giants at Minnesota Vikings: The Giants rested Eli Manning for about half the game and were leading the Vikes 19-10 five minutes into the fourth quarter. The Vikings were desperate and needed the win to guarantee the NFC North. They came back with a touchdown at the 9:35 mark and a field goal with five seconds left in their season. I thought Minny would win but fail to cover the 6.5 point spread.

New England Patriots 13, Buffalo Bills 0: See my four and down post yesterday on why the Pats won and Bills lost. I was right to pick the Pats but wrong to be doubtful over the 6.5 point spread.

Oakland Raiders 31, Tampa Bay Buccaneers 24: For the first half of the season, the Bucs had a great defense. Up until last last week, the Bucs were a perfect 6-0 at home. They finished the season losing four in a row, including the final one against the Raiders. I said the Bucs would win but not cover the 13 points. I failed to grasp the depth of their fall.

Atlanta Falcons 31, St. Louis Rams 27: In many ways the Rams were better than the Falcons -- more than 35 minutes of possession, no turnovers (compared to three for Atlanta), only nine less yards of net offense -- but good teams find ways to win and bad teams find ways to lose. The natural order of things meant that the Falcons would win and they did, but I was wrong to predict they'd cover the 13 point spread.

Indianapolis Colts 23, Tennessee Titans 0: Peyton Manning played only the first series, was a perfect seven for seven for 95 yards and a TD and then left the game. Manning got his ninth consecutive season with at least 4000 yards. Indy WR Marvin Harrison moved into second on the all-time receptions list with 1,102, ahead of Cris Carter and behind Jerry Rice. Manning's replacement, Jim Sorgi, playing his first game this year, was a competent game caller for the Colts. Tennessee played mostly backup players, including on defense. I said Tenny would win unless the Colts tried for the victory. I hedged my bets so I had to be right, in some sense.

Philadelphia Eagles 44, Dallas Cowboys 6: How do you lose a playoff-like game by 38 points against a division rival when you essentially split the time of possession (31-29 minutes)? Easy: five turnovers. Twice in just over three minutes in the third quarter, the Eagles returned a Cowboys fumble for score. Sports Illustrated's Peter King said, "Sunday was one of the five worst days in the 49-year history of the Dallas Cowboys." Probably right. The chemistry on the Cowboys is awful, Tony Romo has to make TO happy but by passing to #81 he upsets Big Baby #2, Roy Williams, acquired from Detroit during the season in exchange for lots of draft picks. No way to run a team. And Wade Phillips can't coach. All they had to do was win, but the situation is so bad few people thought they could. I correctly predicted Philly would win 'easily'. And while I make it sound like the Cowboys lost but the Eagles did their part to earn the win. While the offense was nothing special, the Philly defense was stellar: four sacks, two forced fumbles and an interception.

Baltimore Ravens 27, Jacksonville Jaguars 7: A battle between a team that vastly over-achieved (Baltimore) and greatly under-achieved (Jax) with predictable results. Ravens are 9-2 since starting 2-3, mostly because of the competency of first-year QB Joe Flacco and big play receiver Mark Clayton (four catches for 128 yards on Sunday). Jax is 2-8 since their bye-week and one of those victories was against winless Detroit Lions -- and two of their losses were at the hands of the Cincinnati Bengals and Cleveland Browns. Like everyone else, I had the Ravens covering by at least 2 TDs.

Miami Dolphins 24, New York Jets 17: Brett Favre was really awful: 20 for 40, three picks and 45.1 passer rating and pulled in the final seconds of the game for Brad Smith in what might have been Favre's last game ever. Miami came back with the last ten points for the win, its ninth in ten games. Miami becomes only the second team to improve by 10 wins from one season to the next and makes the playoff one year removed from its 1-15 campaign. Again I hedged: I predicted that Favre would rise to the occasion but said I wouldn't be surprised if the Fins won.

Arizona Cardinals 34, Seattle Seahawks 21: I really thought the 'Hawks would pull off the upset, but one should not under-estimate Kurt Warner: 19 of 30 for 263 yards and four TDs. The teams combined for 182 yards in penalties. Cards go into the post-season with few people expecting them to make it past the first round.

San Francisco 49ers 27, Washington Redskins 24: I correctly predicted the Niners would win by three, although I thought the game would be a lower scoring affair. It should've been, too: no player on either team had more than 80 yards of offense. While they fought back from a 17-7 deficit, San Fran needed a field goal with three seconds left to win.

San Diego Chargers 52, Denver Broncos 21: Denver had sole possession of first in the AFC West every week of the season until the final week, when they became the first team to blow a three game lead with three weeks left and San Diego became the first team to make the playoffs after being four games under 500 (4-8) at any point of the season. I thought the Bolts would win a high scoring affair but not cover the eight point spread. Got the first part right. San Diego scored five rushing TDs and two passing TDs, putting double digit points on the board in every quarter of the game. Philip Rivers made two big passes -- to WR Vincent Jackson and TE Antonio Gates -- for at least 34 yards. Both passes were caught on the dive. Tremendously exciting game to catch on TV. RB LaDainian Tomlinson had a big game: 14 plays for 96 yards and three TDs. As John Madden said, LT was 'finishing his runs' -- something he hasn't seemed to be doing for most of the season (for whatever reason). RB Darren Sproles had a total of 132 yards of offense and both a running and receiving TD. Bolts may have gotten through on a 500 record, but if they can get past Indianapolis in the first round, it wouldn't be surprising to seem them in Tampa on February 1. And if they play the way they did on Sunday, there is little doubt they'll be representing the AFC.
posted by Paul Tuns at 3:05 AM

 
Four and Down

This one is all about the game in Buffalo yesterday which I attended with my eldest son.

4. It was cold. About three Celsius (39 Fahrenheit) but with 30 mph winds and gusts of 55 mph, it felt more like -10 C or colder. Sitting on metal seats didn't help. When the sun appeared in the fourth quarter, the crowd cheered.

3. It was so windy, that when the New England Patriots approached goal in the second quarter, the goal posts had to be straightened. The crowd booed when the referee announced that they was to be so. It didn't help: Stephen Gostkowski missed a 26 yard field goal attempt.

2. It was so windy that Buffalo attempted only three passes in the first half. Watching a lot of running plays -- the crashing of the defensive and offensive lines and the running back carrying the ball a few yards -- can get tedious. But man does the clock move fast when the ball isn't being thrown out of bounds or hitting the ground. Matt Cassel didn't throw much either: six passes in eight attempts for a total of 78 yards.

1. The Patriots won 13-0 and the score was well deserved by both sides. The Pats played smart, sharp, disciplined football, taking the weather into consideration. Bill Belichick called for three fourth-down plays -- twice in one drive -- and his team made all three of them. In each case, they were within Buffalo's 35 yards (at the 35, 25, 14 yard lines) and it was impossible to kick against the wind. The Bills weren't moving the ball very well so even if the Pats turned it over on downs, it wasn't likely they were going to suffer for it. New England took a chance and at least twice Cassel faked a throw and ran for first down. Despite going against the wind, Cassel had thrown enough short, low passes that the Bills had to have pass coverage, opening up the lanes for the Pats QB to gain significant yardage. The Bills were awful. After their first drive, Brian Moorman punted the ball a grand total of 13 yards to New England's 49. With 28 seconds left and the Bills on second down on the Pats 15 yard line, Dick Jauron uses his last timeout. The next play was a pass that wasn't caught, stopping the clock and the final play was a Fred Jackson run up the middle. Even if he had made it very far, they wouldn't have had time to get everybody off the pile and get into formation or take a knee and get the kicker on the field. The play didn't make sense, and even with the time-wasting skirmish between several Pats and Bills players, it was bad time management on Jauron's part.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:58 PM

 
The abortion status quo

Pro-lifers are against it, pro-aborts are in favour and the unborn can't register their opinion.

Rod Bruinooge is a heroically outspoken pro-life Conservative MP from Winnipeg and chair of the non-partisan Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus. He has called for re-opening the debate about abortion and has vowed not to give up on the issue as long as the unborn are without legal protection. See his column Why I am Pro-Life in the National Post. And, of course, by raising the issue, he has re-opened the abortion debate, at least in a perfunctory way. The Globe and Mail story about this turn of events gives the last word to the pro-abortion lobby's Joyce Arthur, who says: "Canadians don't want to go back to the abortion debate ... People are happy with the status quo. It's working well." Unless, of course, you are an unborn person. And then its not working so well, is it?
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:54 PM

 
Using the financial turmoil to advance big government

Larry Summers, who will be the head the White House National Economic Council in the Obama administration, writes in the Washington Post about a government stimulus package:

"Investments in an array of areas -- including energy, education, infrastructure and health care -- offer the potential of extraordinarily high social returns while allowing our country to address some long-standing national challenges and put our economy on a solid footing for years to come."

As Arnold Kling observes, "This does not sound like a short-term plan to stimulate the economy. It sounds like a long-term plan to stimulate bigger government." Today -- and for the foreseeable future -- any government spending is tagged as 'stimulus', no doubt to hide an interventionist agenda. The public, for some reason, believes stimulus policies are both urgently needed and temporary measures.

At TNR, Jacob S. Hacker promotes the idea of "temporarily throwing fiscal caution to the wind when it comes to health care reform" -- and be able to do so in the name of economic stimulus. Of course, any kind of massive government involvement in the health care sector is not going to be temporary, so any such a plan would be to permanently throw fiscal caution to the wind. But in its essence, Hacker's argument is correct: "[G]overnment health spending is also an extraordinarily effective way to boost the economy," because "families [will] have more to spend on other things, improving their own situation and the economy in general." That doesn't make (more) government intervention in the health care sector more desirable, but if any old government spending is thought to stimulate the economy, there is no reason why roads repairs and bank bailouts are better than a doctor's checkup or transplant surgery.

It appears that the Left is hoping to reap political dividends on the economic turmoil but promoting not economic growth but the growth of government in these troubled times.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:50 PM

 
Worstall on life

Tim Worstall on the leftist idea that life is 'inescapably political':

"I don’t regard life as inescapably political. I regard those who do as at best dunderheads with little understanding of the joys that life offers and at worst thieves of such joys from others. For they would use the political system to insist that others do as they wish, not as those others themselves would wish.

Politics is all very well in its place, that place being very much on the periphery of life. Yes, we need a system of choosing those who we decide should be responsible for the scut work in our society. We also need a system to collectively decide what is that scut work which needs to be done collectively and with the monopoly of legitimate violence which we accord the State.

To regard life as inescapably political is to extend that place well beyond what is reasonable or even rational."
posted by Paul Tuns at 7:36 PM

 
Sell you unwanted gift cards

At Gift Card Rescue. Usually, you sell (and buy) at 85-95 cents on the dollar.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:05 AM

 
2008: The end of global warming?

Sunday Telegraph columnist Christopher Booker writes:

"Looking back over my columns of the past 12 months, one of their major themes was neatly encapsulated by two recent items from The Daily Telegraph.

The first, on May 21, headed "Climate change threat to Alpine ski resorts" , reported that the entire Alpine "winter sports industry" could soon "grind to a halt for lack of snow". The second, on December 19, headed "The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation" , reported that this winter's Alpine snowfalls "look set to beat all records by New Year's Day".

Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned..."

Booker explains that "temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models," the scientific 'consensus' has been exposed as a sham, and the realization that we cannot afford the luxury of unnecessary environmental programs, have combined to kill environmental hysteria. At least for now.
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:45 AM

 
The UN does something well

It counts. Literally, the UN counts. The Washington Times has a lengthyish article on the UN's data collection and how it is the gold standard for numbers, which may be true but can be called into question when the data is praised by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Michele Montas, thusly: "These statistics ... are essential for our own humanitarian assistance to refugees and displaced people, for school feeding programs or to support women's participation in political life." If the data is good and essential to various humanitarian efforts, why do those humanitarian efforts stink so much?
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:40 AM

 
Great sentences to ponder

George F. Will in the Washington Post about the growth of government -- and in the public's and Congress' belief that such growth might bear good fruit: "Today, there is more Johnsonian confidence in government's competence than at any time since Johnson's policies shattered such confidence."
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:25 AM

 
Any given Sunday










Carolina Panthers at New Orleans Saints: Panthers are playing for seeding; Saints are playing to help Drew Brees break Dan Marino's single-season passing-yards record. He needs 402 yards to break Marino's mark of 5,084. In home games, the Saints let loose, scoring -- get this -- 24, 31, 30, 34, 37, 51 and 29 points thus far this year. That's better than a 30 average. The Panthers are a physical team and could over match the banged up Saints and they have four legit offensive weapons: RBs DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart and WRs Steve Smith and Muhsin Muhammad. Carolina is favoured by three points but will have difficulty covering with the Saints' potent offense.

Chicago Bears at Houston Texans: Potentially interesting game and not just because the Bears need it for any chance to make it into the playoffs. Bears are playing better offensively, but so are the Texans. Bears' RB Matt Forte should be a rookie of the year candidate, but Bears QB Kyle Orton has struggled recently, especially with his accuracy. On the plus side, Orton is facing the weak Houston secondary. Bears defense has been inconsistent although never really sketchy. They can pass rush and blitz, so expect them to pressure QB Matt Schaub who has 14 turnovers in his 10 starts. He should be looking to get the ball to Andre Johnson more; just two catches last week in Houston's loss to the Oakland Raiders. Texans are favoured by three, which sounds correct.

Cleveland Browns at Pittsburgh Steelers: Pittsburgh has clinched the number 2 seed. Pittsburgh has won 11 straight against the Browns and the heated rivalry between the two means there won't be that much resting for the Steelers, as regional pride is at stake. Browns will be looking for their first offensive TD in six weeks and it will tough for the inept Browns and Bruce Gradkowski, their fourth-string game caller (now that third-stringer Ken Dorsey is out with a concussion) to get it against the Steel Curtain. Browns are also missing TE Kellen Winslow, so it is almost impossible to imagine how they will get the ball down the field. Big Ben will start for Pittsburgh, but once the Steelers get the lead, expect Byron Leftwich to see significant time, not that he is much of a downgrade: 117.2 passer rating in parts of four games subbing for Roethlisberger. If the Steelers can't score and it comes down to scoring field goals, both PKers, Steelers Jeff Reed and Browns Phil Dawson are pretty good at kicking in cruddy weather and on grass. Steelers are favoured by 10.5 points which sounds like a lot for a game featuring a team that has already clinched second seed for January, but probably not against the Browns and Gradkowski; they simply do not have the depth or the speed to stay in a game with a team that has lost just once over the past six games (against 13-2 Tennessee last week).

Detroit Lions at Green Bay Packers: The winless Lions will try to avoid the infamy of 0-16 as they visit Lambeau Field. The Packers have been losing because their defense doesn't hold up its end of the bargain, but that shouldn't be a problem against the Lions. Green Bay outplayed the Chicago Bears last week in an overtime loss and despite losing twice as often as they win, they have outscored opponents 388-359, whereas the Lions have almost allowed almost twice as many points as they have scored (247-486). Watch the Packers to maintain a balance between a varied aerial game ably led by Aaron Rodgers and a solid ground game led by Ryan Grant. Packers win and beat the nine point spread easily.

Kansas City Chiefs at Cincinnati Bengals: Both teams, which have combined for five wins this season, have played with a lot of fight lately. I'll go with the hot team; Cincy has won two in a row and they are at home. They are favoured by three, which sounds about right because 1) the Bengals haven't scored more than 14 points since the first week of November and 2) their current two game winning streak has been the result of stellar defense and the run of Cedric Benson. But its impossible to take the Chiefs on the road, with only one road win this season (against the Raiders).

New York Giants at Minnesota Vikings: The Vikes have caught a break -- a win and their in, although they can make the playoffs with a loss if the Chicago Bears lose, too -- because the Giants have clinched home field advantage and will probably rest the banged-up RB Brandon Jacobs, NT Fred Robbins, and CB Aaron Ross. Others such as WR Domenik Hixon and QB Eli Manning might not see the whole game. The Vikings clearly were missing NT Pat Williams on the D-line last week against the Falcons. The G-Men's lesser used running options Derrick Ward and Ahmad Bradshaw might get to shine against a weakened Minny run defense. It isn't clear who the Vikings will use under center -- Gus Ferotte has not played in three weeks after going down with an injury, but Tarvaris Jackson really stunk last week after two good showings. Vikes should win because they will do whatever it takes for the win, while the Giants might begin resting players at some point in this game. Vikings are favoured by 6.5 points but that is too much.

New England Patriots at Buffalo Bills: Pats win and they'll have their sixth consecutive AFC East division title, and normally you wouldn't take the visitors in the gusty, chilled winds of Ralph Wilson Stadium, but New England stomped Arizona 47-7 last week and QB Matt Cassel is looking Favre-like in adverse weather conditions thus far this season. (Tom) Brady who? Cassel has thrown 14 TDs over the past six games, including seven to Randy Moss. Also, Moss has a significant size advantage over the Bills' corners, although Terrence McGee's has the skills which will help mitigate that disadvantage. And there's always WR Wes Welker who is averaging 10.4 yards per catch. If the weather forces the Pats to the ground, power RBs Sammy Morris and LaMont Jordan and speedy RB Kevin Faulk will face a front Bills seven that includes MLB Paul Posluszny and DT Marcus Stroud. If it is a ground game, the Bills might be in trouble with star RB Marshawn Lynch battling injuries. In last week's come-from-behind win against Denver, Buffalo's QB Trent Edwards looked to have regained some of his early-season form. After a shaky start, New England's defensive line has gotten better as the season progressed. Tough game to call, though I will take the Pats because they know how to win and Bill Belichick is a great coach who will get his team to the playoffs. But 6.5 points in Buffalo sounds like too much.

Oakland Raiders at Tampa Bay Buccaneers: SI's Peter King is predicting the Raiders don't score, not even a field goal. Bucs have lost three straight and their defense, which has looked less stellar in December than it did over the first three months of the season (giving up an average of more than 400 yards and 30 points per game over the past three weeks). Raiders usually rely on RB Justin Fargas but the Bucs defensive line does not pass rush, so JaMarcus Russell will have plenty of time to eye his passing targets. Bucs should win but considering the way they have played lately, 13 points sounds like too much, even against the Raiders. Bucs need a win along with a Dallas Cowboys loss to make the post-season. The Bucs will do what they have to do.

St. Louis Rams at Atlanta Falcons: Rams face their tenth consecutive loss and are so terrible that their points for/against differential (-229) is only ten worse than Detroit's. Falcons could secure second seed with a win combined with a Carolina loss. Rookie QB Matt Ryan, RB Michael Turner and WR Roddy White are a solid offensive trio. They'll win and should cover the 13 points.

Tennessee Titans at Indianapolis Colts: Pretty meaningless contest and neither team will want the other to see their best game in case they meet each other in January. Tenny is even likely to use opening day starter Vince Young -- who almost immediately lost his job to Kerry Collins -- both to audition for 2009 and to prevent a potential playoff opponent from seeing too much of their regular starting QB. The Colts defense is much smaller than the Titans O-line. Indy's RB Joseph Addai and WR Marvin Harrison having been playing through injuries so they'll need to rest this week; QB Peyton Manning is not likely to play more than a few series, so the Titans should win. They are favoured by three, which makes sense because neither team is likely to strain themselves running up a score. But if Indy wants to go to the effort to win, they will. But why would they?

Dallas Cowboys at Philadelphia Eagles: Cowboys win and they are in; Eagles win and they might make it if the Bucs lose and either the Bears or Vikings lose, too. Donovan McNabb is the better QB than Tony Romo and RB Marion Barber is nursing a toe injury. It won't help that Romo will face one of the better defenses (top five in total yards allowed, rushing yards, passing yards, first downs allowed). Cowboys have a lot of drama going on now and the Eagles seem to be over theirs. Philly is favoured by 1.5 points and they should win it easily as long as McNabb can keep away from OLB DeMarcus Ware, who has a chance to break the season sack record.

Jacksonville Jaguars at Baltimore Ravens: Baltimore is one of the best teams in the NFL with a superb defense (ranked second overall) and surprisingly good offense led by rookie QB Joe Flacco. Jax has disappointed all season and although they kept it close for a while ten days ago against the Colts, their cruddy offensive line will be man-handled by the Ravens' defense. Almost all prognosticators have the Ravens covering the 13 point spread. There is no reason to swim against the stream on this one.

Miami Dolphins at New York Jets: Forget the drama of Chad Pennington returning to New York to (possibly) eliminate his former team from the playoffs; I'd take the lacklustre-looking Brett Favre against the over-performing Pennington in this kind of high-pressure game. Fins have been victorious in eight of their last nine games and are playing in January if they make that nine in ten. After a November swing that had pundits' tongues a-wagging about the Jets in the Super Bowl, New York has lost three of four. They need a win and a Patriots' loss to advance. The Jets D is lacking with the once-strong run defense looking as awful of late as their passing defense has all season. Pennington is accurate with his conservative short passing game (17 TDs compared to just 7 picks) and the running game is working with blockers Jake Long and Vernon Casey as good as anyone in the NFL right now. But Favre looks like a man ready to hang up his cleats and he will want to do it on a high note, to undo the story of his past four games: 1 TD vs. 6 interceptions. He'll have help: the Jets O-line is strong and RB Thomas Jones is one of the best in the AFC right now. I expect the Jets to win by three but won't be surprised if the Fins pull it off.

Seattle Seahawks at Arizona Cardinals: The 'Hawks have looked better lately and the Cards have lost four of five, giving up nearly three times the yards (514) than they got (186) last week against the New England Patriots. Cards should also rest ailing WR Anquan Boldin and RB J.J. Arrington, both of whom missed last week, thereby limiting the options on offense. The O-line is increasingly porous and QB Kurt Warner is coming off a 30 passing yards game. Seattle will be motivated to give Mike Holmgren a decent send-off in his final game coaching the Seahawks and backup QB Seneca Wallace has looked more than competent in Matt Hasselbeck's absence. Seattle upsets. Cards are favoured by six, but I'm predicting an upset. Arizona has lost their past two games by a combined score of 69-25.

Washington Redskins at San Francisco 49ers: The Niners have won four of their past six and the Skins, notwithstanding last week's victory over the inconsistent Philadelphia Eagles, have had a terrible second half. The Niners have the second fewest (17) forced turnovers in the NFL and Skins QB Jason Campbell has been pick-free in 80% of his games. RB Clinton Portis is nursing injuries and aches in every part of his body (Pro Football Weekly lists: "a calf strain, a sprained ankle, back spasms, a bruised hand and neck, knee and hip issues") and faces a San Francisco team adept at stopping the run (four of their past eight opponents have been held to fewer than 100 rushing yards). Niners will miss RB Frank Gore, but their defense has got its act together: only one of its past six opponents have scored more than 16 points and they've allowed just 42 points over the past four games. Skins haven't scored more than 14 points in any game since November 23. San Fran wins by three.

Denver Broncos at San Diego Chargers: Whoever wins this game takes the AFC West title and Denver is hoping not to become the first team to blow a three game lead with three games left in the season. San Diego is hoping to reach 500 with its fourth win a row, thus far powered by the arm of QB Philip Rivers. Likewise, the Broncs are fueled by their QB, Jay Cutler. Broncos QB Jay Cutler -- AFC passing yards leader with 4,210 -- faces the worst pass defense in the NFL, but due to injuries he doesn't have a reliable RB option, so the Bolts will double team the Broncs' pair of excellent receivers, Brandon Marshall and Eddie Royal, and solid TE Brandon Stokley. As great as Cutler has been, Rivers is better, leading all QBs in TDs (32), passer rating (104) and yards per pass attempt (8.3). The pass defense of the Broncs is only slightly better than that of the Chargers, so this could be quite the aerial game. While LaDainian Tomlinson has struggled all year, his reputation is enough to keep opposing defenses honest. If he is given the ball and he can carry it for a few yards, that just makes WR Vincent Vackson and TE Antonio Gates that much more fearsome. San Diego has an advantage on special teams with Mike Scifres, one of the best punters in the game, and return man Darren Sproles, a speed-demon. Bolts win (but don't cover the eight points) and make the playoffs, absolving week 2 referee/goat Ed Hochuli of any injustice in the Broncos narrowly making the playoffs over the Chargers.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:06 PM

 
And now from the peanut gallery

Sandy Szwarc writes about paranoia over peanut allergies:

"An article in the current issue of the British Medical Journal suggested that efforts to protect children with peanut allergies have become a cycle of escalating reactions, unsupported by the science, and are making fears worse...

It’s hard to have a calm discussion about peanut allergies at most forums without the issue quickly disintegrating into a choice between a PB&J and the death of a child. Accurate information is somehow seen as a threat to children with allergies. If the risk of death isn’t heightened to the max, doctors and scientists are accused by parents of trying to hurt their children. Fear is a powerful thing, not just as a news item to generate ratings or to sell programs and products, but when it becomes part of us. Trying to find the line between unproductive fear and constructive precautions is hard..."

Not that there aren't serious and sometimes life-threatening allergies, but there is serious over-reaction to the issue. Szwarc summarizes Dr. Nicholas Christakis' BMJ article thusly: "[T]he increasingly extreme reactions of school officials over peanut allergies, and their 'draconian efforts' to completely eliminate exposures, far exceed the magnitude of the actual threat." She quotes figures from Food Insight, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics and the Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network which show that reported cases of peanut allergies have increased in recent years. Szwarc says:

"These reports might seem to be saying that more children today have diagnosed food allergies, but that is not what they are actually reporting. The studies behind these claims were surveys, all of which found that the percentage of parents who report they believe their children have food allergies has increased over the past decade.

But these reports have also neglected to reveal that repeated studies have found that 5 times more parents report their children have food allergies than actually do when tested in double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges; and as many as 12 times more report food allergies in their infants and children than actually have food allergies when given skin prick testing. The discrepancy between perceived and actual food allergies is growing."

But to point this out -- or ever raise the objection to a school administrator that it is wrong to severely limit the lunch and breakfast options of classmates of children with non-fatal peanut allergies -- is to be an uncaring brute.
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:48 PM

 
Catholic Register registers distrust of Ignatieff

A very good editorial from the Catholic Register that raises some excellent points about how little we know about Michael Ignatieff and that which we do know (mostly from his writings on the idea of human rights) does not inspire a lot of confidence.

Ignatieff's blind spots
Wednesday, 24 December 2008
Catholic Register

In his first few weeks as Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff has been surefooted. He has exuded confidence, determination and a sense of what needs to be done. Canadians have seen a strong alternative to Prime Minister Stephen Harper if the country is forced into another federal election sooner rather than later.

Still, we know very little about him, other than that he is the son of Russian aristocracy, a Harvard intellectual, author of both political treatises and novels and has been absent from the country for most of his adult life. He offers plenty of impressions but precious little about where he would like to lead the country.

His academic reputation is based on his writing about human rights, so to get an idea of what kind of society Ignatieff would like Canada to be, it doesn’t hurt to start with his writing. A primer of sorts would be The Rights Revolution (Anansi), the published version of his 2000 CBC Massey Lectures.

In his lectures, Ignatieff offers a potted history of the evolution of human rights. Much of it is uncontroversial and would be widely accepted by Canadians...

But there are some worrisome forays into trendiness and one significant blind spot. That latter would be religion. Ignatieff, a professed secular humanist, sees religion as a largely private matter that should be tolerated, but not necessarily promoted. His few mentions of the topic in The Rights Revolution are generally negative.

Nowhere does he recognize that there would be no “human rights revolution,” indeed, no Enlightenment, had it not been for Christianity. This omission does not bode well for his understanding of the place of faith in Canadian society.

More worrisome yet is his overly optimistic evaluation of the role of the sexual revolution in debilitating family life in Western society. Ignatieff laments the high price we’ve paid in divorce, absentee fatherhood, abuse and wounded children, but argues the price of “freedom” — as he defines it — is worth what we’ve paid. To Ignatieff, the children will just have to suck it up. “We wanted freedom and we should stop apologizing for it. We must simply pay its price.”

For Ignatieff, the genius of Canada is that there is no one cookie-cutter version of what it means to be Canadian. Rather, it can mean whatever we want it to mean. This, to him, is cause for celebration.

For many others, however, it has gone too far, causing much of our discord, disunity and lack of any sense of responsibility for each other.

Maybe it isn’t fair to judge the man based on one nine-year-old lecture. But if it represents his views today, many Canadians will not be prepared to follow where Ignatieff would like to lead us.
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:22 PM

 
Four and down

4. Horrible news. Just terrible. Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones says coach Wade Phillips and offensive co-ordinator and assistant coach Jason Garrett will be back next week regardless of whether the team makes it into the post-season with a win tomorrow. I wouldn't have them back even if they won and made the playoffs. Not with Mike Holmgren potentially looking for work. Or any other warm body that could coach in Phillips' place.

3. Sports Illustrated's Peter King predicts the Tampa Bay Buccaneers will beat the Oakland Raiders 30-0. It is quite something to predict a team to score zero points -- especially with a Bucs defense surrendering almost 31 points a game on their current three-game losing streak.

2. If I were guaranteed my spot and seed in the playoffs, I would probably rest my players. I don't really believe in 'momentum' going into January football (or for those who don't make the post-season, momentum going into the 2009 season seven months from now). But in the case of Indianapolis and Tennessee, there is more reason to hold back: don't let the other team see your best game. I think that one reason the New York Giants beat the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl last year was because the Pats gave their everything in the final game of the regular season last year going for a perfect 16-0, a game against the Giants in which New York got valuable first-hand intelligence about their future opponent. Tenny and Indy should not ignore that lesson.

1. Yesterday was the 15th anniversary of the first Lambeau Leap. Happy birthday -- and thanks Leroy Butler.
posted by Paul Tuns at 7:50 PM

 
Three and out

3. I agree with many baseball pundits that there will be a backlash against the New York Yankee, but in many ways it is silly. The Yankees are probably going to have a payroll in the same vicinity of last year's when they finished third in the AL East because they let go a number of players with big price tags (Jason Giambi, Bobby Abreu, Mike Mussina, possibly Andy Petite). Spending money is not guarantee of success (see the Baltimore Orioles since Peter Angelos has taken over, the Los Angeles Dodgers in many years, the 2008 Detroit Tigers).

2. I think East Coast Bias' J-Red's proposal for a luxury tax on everyone over the league average payroll to be divvied up among those in the bottom half based on a formula that combines the previous year's finish and current payroll, is innovative and interesting, but wrong. It may create the wrong incentives by encouraging teams to keep payrolls low and lose in order to receive a larger percentage of the luxury tax.

1. Why would Randy Johnson want to play for the San Francisco Giants? And why would the Giants pay between $8-13 million for one season of an aged pitcher that doesn't help in their rebuilding process? The money would be better spent on a quality defensive middle infielder which would help build the confidence of their young pitchers. Watching Johnson march toward 300 wins should reminiscent of Barry Bonds chasing Hank Aaron's all-time homerun record, relegating the Giants to a sideshow to a milestone main event.
posted by Paul Tuns at 7:41 PM

 
Christmas music

Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring by Celtic Woman.




God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen by a boys choir




Good King Wenceslas by Loreena McKennitt




O Holy Night by Josh Groban




Johnny Cash and friends sing the 12 Days of Christmas




Trent Austin does a rocked up version of The Little Drummer Boy


posted by Paul Tuns at 6:53 PM

 
Merry Christmas

I wish you all a merry and blessed Christmas.































The Christmas story:

This is how Jesus Christ came to be born. His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph; but before they came to live together she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.

Her husband Joseph, being an upright man and wanting to spare her disgrace, decided to divorce her informally.

He had made up his mind to do this when suddenly the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, 'Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because she has conceived what is in her by the Holy Spirit.

She will give birth to a son and you must name him Jesus, because he is the one who is to save his people from their sins.'

Now all this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken through the prophet:

Look! the virgin is with child and will give birth to a son whom they will call Immanuel, a name which means 'God-is-with-us'.

When Joseph woke up he did what the angel of the Lord had told him to do: he took his wife to his home;

he had not had intercourse with her when she gave birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.

After Jesus had been born at Bethlehem in Judaea during the reign of King Herod, suddenly some wise men came to Jerusalem from the east

asking, 'Where is the infant king of the Jews? We saw his star as it rose and have come to do him homage.'

When King Herod heard this he was perturbed, and so was the whole of Jerusalem.

He called together all the chief priests and the scribes of the people, and enquired of them where the Christ was to be born.

They told him, 'At Bethlehem in Judaea, for this is what the prophet wrote:

And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, you are by no means the least among the leaders of Judah, for from you will come a leader who will shepherd my people Israel.'

Then Herod summoned the wise men to see him privately. He asked them the exact date on which the star had appeared

and sent them on to Bethlehem with the words, 'Go and find out all about the child, and when you have found him, let me know, so that I too may go and do him homage.'

Having listened to what the king had to say, they set out. And suddenly the star they had seen rising went forward and halted over the place where the child was.

The sight of the star filled them with delight,

and going into the house they saw the child with his mother Mary, and falling to their knees they did him homage. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh.

But they were given a warning in a dream not to go back to Herod, and returned to their own country by a different way.

After they had left, suddenly the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, 'Get up, take the child and his mother with you, and escape into Egypt, and stay there until I tell you, because Herod intends to search for the child and do away

So Joseph got up and, taking the child and his mother with him, left that night for Egypt.

Luke 1:18-25, 2:1-14
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:05 PM

 
Merry Christmas Yankee fans

New York Yankees have now signed three of the five biggest free agents of this off-season: starters C.C. Sabathia and A.J. Burnett and now 1B Mark Teixeira. They prevented the Boston Red Sox from signing the steady switch-hitting, near gold-glove defense first baseman by dangling $180 million for eight years. Win-win, as they say. Word is that LF Manny Ramirez is still not out of the equation, either.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:42 PM

 
AGS revisited

Indianapolis Colts 31, Jacksonville Jaguars 24: I said Indy would 'easily' cover the six point spread; by easily, I meant clearing it by a point. Watching Peyton Manning pass -- deep passes, through coverage, down the middle, along the sides -- was thrilling. He is a true artist. The Colts won their eighth in a row and will be a popular pick to win the AFC (they are my pick).

Baltimore Ravens 33, Dallas Cowboys 24: What a disappointing result for the final Cowboys game in Irving, Texas. There is a lot of criticism of Tony Romo not able to win the big games (5-7 in December and January over his career), but the Ravens played a more intense and better game. No one on the Cowboys team played with any sense of urgency. I thought the Cowboys would win -- but they didn't play like a winning team and deserved the result they got.

Cincinnati Bengals 14, Cleveland Browns 0: I correctly predicted the Bengals would get the upset in Cleveland. I also said, "The only interesting question is whether the Browns can pick up their first offensive TD in more than a month." Obviously they didn't.

Miami Dolphins 38, Kansas City Chiefs 31: I wouldn't have predicted these two teams to combine for 31 points, let alone have both of them score at least that many. I correctly predicted the Fins covering the four points. The Chiefs almost had 500 total net yards of offense (492) but four turnovers hurt them. Fins scored with just over four minutes left in the fourth to break a 31-31 tie. For the first time all year, the Fins had a pair of turnovers -- fortunately for them, it didn't matter.

New Orleans Saints 42, Detroit Lions 7: This is what happens when the first ranked offense faces the 31st ranked defense. Predicted the Saints would cover the 6.5 -- which they did more than five times. Drew Brees had a great game: 30 for 40, 351 yards, 2 TDs.

Tennessee Titans 31, Pittsburgh 14: The Steelers gave up four turnovers, and the Titans turned those four turnovers into 21 points -- the difference between winning and losing. The Titans became the first team to get 300 total offensive yards off the Steelers defense. Tenny's defense was solid, too: five sacks, two interceptions. And aggressive coaching helped; two of the Titans' TDs came after successfully converting a fourth down deep in the Steelers' end. I thought the Steelers would win. The Titans didn't win the game, the Steelers lost it.

San Diego Chargers 41, Tampa Bay Buccaneers 24: The Bolts' win, combined with the Denver Broncos' loss, sets up a win-and-in between the two AFC West rivals for the division title and a playoff spot. The Bucs led 24-20 going into the fourth. Philip Rivers is making a strong case for MVP consideration with a super Sunday afternoon: 21 for 31, 287 yards, 4 TDs, no picks, 136.7 passer rating, converting 7 of 13 third downs. I correctly predicted the Bolts road upset of the Bucs.

San Francisco 49ers 17, St. Louis Rams 16: I've liked the 49ers of late and find the Rams' play just plain ugly so I predicted the Niners to cover the five-point spread. San Fran won but didn't cover, scoring two TDs in the final five minutes to overcome a 16-3 deficit. Last week, the Niners lost to the Miami Dolphins despite having possession for twice as long as the Fins. This week, the Niners won despite having possession for only half the time the Rams did.

Buffalo Bills 30, Denver Broncos 23: My heart said the Bills would win, not because I have any affection for Buffalo but because I want to see the Chargers make the post-season. But there was no analytical reason to predict the Bills to win and indeed I called the Broncos to win but not cover the seven points. I did, however, correctly say it would be an explosive game. The Bills outscored the Broncs 14-3 in the final quarter to win.

Oakland Raiders 27, Houston Texans 16: Me and everyone else figured the Texans would win. Looking for a reason the Texans lost: Pro Bowl WR Andre Johnson had just two catches for 19 yards -- both in the final quarter. Houston scored only one touchdown.

Seattle Seahawks 13, New York Jets 3: Blame Brett Favre, who had a fourth consecutive sub-62 passer rating game in a row. Only 187 passing yard with no TDs, but two picks. The odds-makers had the Jets favoured by 4.5, but I predicted the 'Hawks to win. Somehow they did, despite converting just two of twelve third downs.

Atlanta Falcons 24, Minnesota Vikings 17: How does a team give up four turnovers but not one interception? That is a special kind of awful, but the Vikings did it. Falcons scored 10 points on their possessions after recovering Minny's fumbles. Both teams had a 12-play scoring drive that lasted at least six minutes in their first possession. I predicted the Vikings to win but said I wouldn't be surprised to see the Falcons win. That's called hedging your bets.

Washington Redskins 10, Philadelphia Eagles 3: Philly lost to the terrible Skins. I was way off, saying I'd be surprised if the Eagles won by anything less than double digits. It was a pretty awful game, with both teams combining for just 524 total offensive yards. Washington was less awful.

New York Giants 34, Carolina Panthers 28 (OT): I said: "Giants are favoured by three, but I see the Panthers pulling off the upset." DeAngelo Williams scored four TDs, making a strong case for MVP consideration. The Giants had two RBs do the big things, too. Brandon Jacobs scored three 3 TDs and Dixon Ward rushed for 215 yards, including 51 yards in the OT to get the G-Men in position to score the rare OT TD.

Chicago Bears 20, Green Bay Packers 17 (OT): Packers played well all game and Aaron Rodgers had a decent aerial game going (24/39, 260 yards, 2 TDs) despite playing in sub-zero temperatures. Still, the Packers blew a 14-3 half-time lead by giving up TDs in both second half quarters and a field goal early in the OT. I thought the Packers would win. Five of their last six losses have been by a combined 15 points.
posted by Paul Tuns at 6:10 PM

 
Lasso of Truth on feminism

Wonder Woman at Lasso of Truth has a defiant defense of becoming a stripper rather than becoming a victim or dependent -- and it is worth reading. But here is the (family-safe) quote on feminism that is her takeaway point:

"Feminism is for weak women who need excuses and causes to give their lives meaning, or for women who are too cowardly, lazy or overburdened by the massive chips on their shoulders, to measure up in any meaningful way without insisting on a handicap advantage."
posted by Paul Tuns at 3:03 PM

 
Mosting interesting list of the year (so far)

The D.C. Examiner has the top five mommy stories of the year, including famous teen pregnancies (Bristol Palin), a pregnant man (who isn't really a dude), the momification of Michelle Obama, big TV families (the Duggans) and the strange phenomenon of Twilight Moms.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:53 PM

 
Options markets are a form of legal betting but don't tell anyone

Justin Wolfers at Freakonomics:

"Color me confused, but I’ve never really understood the difference between a bet and 'financial trade.' And if there ever really was a line, it’s definitely becoming blurrier.

In recent months, there have been millions of dollars bet in options markets, as traders seek a big payday in the event that the economy heads south — and this hasn’t raised an eyebrow. But when an Aussie bookie began offering bets on whether the Australian economy is headed for recession, he stirred up a bit of strife.

Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan called the bookie’s actions 'utterly irresponsible.'

The contrast between the Treasurer’s response to financial trades and bookies’ bets provides a nice example of how people respond differently, depending on how a bet is framed. One is modern finance, while the other is a repugnant market."
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:47 PM

 
Sentence of the year

On January 1st each year, I begin looking forward to George Will's year-in-review column in Newsweek, in part because of lines like this:

"Caroline Kennedy, because she is a president's daughter, sought the gift of the Senate seat from New York that Hillary Clinton got because she married a president, but Andrew Cuomo, son of a New York governor, might get it, because this is a democracy."
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:50 AM

 
Quite a telling admission

The New York Times reports on the marriage of Jeff Weinstein and John Perreault, an art critic and food writer respectively:

"[Perreault] even teared up when applying for the marriage certificate. 'I thought it would be just like getting a driver’s license, but it wasn’t'."

However, considering the sterility inherent in the relationship, when two men get 'married' it is more like a driver's license.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:11 AM

 
What I'm reading

1. Spin-Free Economics: A No-Nonsense Nonpartisan Guide to Today's Global Economic Debates by Nariman Behravesh.

2. "Government in 3D: How Public Leaders Can Draw on Virtual Worlds," a report from the IBM Business Center for the Business of Government.

3. The transcript of the conversation between American Enterprise Institute president Christopher DeMuth and U.S. president George W. Bush.

4. "Benedict XVI is magnificently right," by 'Spengler' in the December 9 Asia Times. Spengler says that traditional morality is a necessary pre-condition for economic dynamism -- and that it is "mere moralizing, not morality, to dismiss what economics has learned about the market mechanism."

5. "The X Tax: The Progressive Consumption Tax America Needs?" a AEI Tax Policy by Alan D. Viard, Robert Carroll and Scott Ganz. I am not persuaded of the wisdom of moving toward a consumption tax.

6. "Do high heels empower or constrain?," by Germaine Greer in the December 13 Times (London).
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:04 AM

 
Four and down

4. The Tennessee Titans beat the Pittsburgh Steelers 31-14. The Steelers lost the game (four turnovers, after which the Titans scored 21 points) more than the Titans won it.

3. When the San Deigo Chargers started 0-2, I was still predicting them to win the division, perhaps needing their final game, a home contest against the Denver Broncos, to clinch. Next week's NBC Sunday Night Football game features the 8-7 Broncs and 7-8 Bolts with the Bolts holding the tie-breakers if they beat Denver. To ensure that game remained meaningful, the Chargers had to beat the Buccaneers in Tampa, where the Bucs were 7-0 this season. Until today. And the Buffalo Bills needed to beat the Broncs in Denver; it was just the second victory for the Bills in nine games.

2. Might the Chargers still having a chance to make the post-season be some kind of cosmic justice, making up for the blown call of referee Ed Hochuli in week two when the Broncs beat the Bolts 39-38 when Denver scored after keeping the ball on an incomplete pass rather than losing it on a fumble (as it should have been).

1. One last Chargers item. Of the eight teams in the two western divisions, San Diego is the only one to have scored more than they have allowed (+61)/.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:36 PM

 
Three and out

3. Ken Rosenthal of Fox Sports on the Seattle Mariners outfield: "Please, no more talk about how Endy Chavez, Franklin Gutierrez and Ichiro could give the Mariners the most formidable defensive outfield in the game. That outfield would have almost zero punch..." Corner outfielders need to hit for power -- and Seattle's don't.

2. Rosenthal's thoughts on Mark Teixiera are also worth reading. He says no player is worth $20 million a season for eight years (I disagree) and correctly notes that Teixeira's bat is not one of the ten best in baseball, so why all the fuss over a very, very good but far from superstar quality player? Because of his age (28) and consistency. He turns 29 in the opening month of the 2009 season, so you won't be paying for a lot of declining years (compared to signing a 30-something free agent for eight years). He averages 151 games a year (he's durable), he has a high on-base percentage (he hits and walks and looks at pitches), he is a switch-hitter (Rosenthal says one of the three best in the Majors), and plays excellent defense (value added). Today, that is worth $20 million a season to a consistent contender. So the LA Angels, Boston Red Sox and (perhaps) New York Yankees make a lot of sense. The Baltimore Orioles and Washington Nationals do not, because by the time they are ready to contend, he will likely be in decline.

1. Beat writer Sam Borden sent Peter Abraham at LoHud Yankees Blog lots of inside gossip about the Yankees and confirms what many already guessed about New York's pursuit of C.C. Sabathia: it was going to happen all along. Borden reported that the discussions in the organization began last off-season when they decided not to trade for him (and thus give up propsects). They chose to wait a year (and forego Johann Santana who eventually went to the New York Mets) and "take a gamble" that Sabathia would still be available this off-season. Good move, giving up only money rather than money and bodies.
posted by Paul Tuns at 6:59 PM

 
GCH on bailing out the car companies

Gods of the Copybook Headings on the Canadian bailout of General Motors and Chrysler: "Open a Hole and Just Pour It In." I recall a Stephen Harper who once said government shouldn't pick winners and losers.
posted by Paul Tuns at 4:59 PM

 
Comments

Send 'em to paul_tuns[AT]yahoo.com.
posted by Paul Tuns at 4:37 PM

 
Top 15 political blogs

Over at Full Comment, Michael Taube lists the top 15 political blogs in Canada. For the most part I agree with the list (and not just because I'm included) although I'd all tip my hat to the Manitoba-centric Hacks and Wonks and the inconsistently updated Countering the Nanny State, although I'm not sure who I would remove to make room for them.
posted by Paul Tuns at 4:32 PM

 
Interim's Person of the Year































Ezra Levant. We won't have the story up until January, so you can read the feature -- or features -- at Ezra's website.

The Interim has never named a Person of the Year before, but it has been something I've been thinking about since April or May. Without Ezra's leadership in the battle against the human rights commission industry, especially his posting on YouTube of his Alberta Human Rights Tribunal hearing, I don't think HRCs would be be much of an issue today. The story is written by Kathy Shaidle, I have a Q&A with Levant and Mark Steyn has a short appreciation of Levant.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:58 PM

 
Because every half-decade or so we must vow 'never again'
Or, Africa is like the weather

People always talk about it but nobody does anything about it.

Mary Riddell writes in the Sunday Telegraph about the Congo, another African basketcase for which there is no celebrity advocate:

"In this secret hell, 1.3 million people have been driven from their homes. Around 1,000 die each day and in some areas two out of three women have been raped. In a refugee camp thick with smoke and loud with gunfire, one woman holds her baby and weeps. She began her journey with six children; five have died along the way or been snatched from her.

The chance that she will ever see them again is slight, in a country where 10-year-olds are being tortured at bayonet-point by attackers who like to snap their victims' limbs. Each night, people walk miles from their villages to huddle round the UN headquarters, balancing the prospect of a few hours' safety with the risk of being murdered on the way. "This isn't about being hungry," says an Oxfam official. 'It's about your whole life being torn up. It's about not knowing if your children are alive or dead. It's worse than you ever read, and getting worse by the day'."

British and French authorities join the UN in calling for peace -- like asking murderers and rapists to stop what they are doing is going to work. When the West actually finds the words to condemn the atrocities in the Congo (or elsewhere in Africa) it never backs them up with words, so that every few years political leaders and UN apparatchiks can vow 'never again' and cruelly give hope to those who suffer at the hands of despots and rebels.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:40 PM

 
Bailout recipients by size and state

Displayed graphically here at the New York Times (there is more underneath this graphic).





























Alan S. Binder, an early (theoretical) supporter of the Troubled Assets Relief Program writes in the New York Times that TARP isn't going to do what it was designed to do:

"It pains me to say this, because I was among the first to call upon Congress to create two institutions to deal with the financial crisis: one to buy and refinance home mortgages, the other to buy what came to be called “troubled assets.” The legislation signed in October empowered the TARP to do both. Sadly and amazingly, it has done neither...

Old-fashioned believers in democracy may recall that a reluctant Congress was sold on the idea of buying troubled assets, not on injecting capital into banks."

And now is the time to prevent the second half of the $700 billion program from being paid out:

"Fortunately, the TARP legislation authorized a first tranche of $350 billion but wisely gave Congress a mechanism for blocking release of the second $350 billion. With the first tranche now committed, Mr. Paulson said he would soon request release of the second. Based on his performance to date, Congress should reject that request unless he agrees to spend most of the next installment on TARP’s two stated purposes."
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:24 PM

 
Any given Sunday










Cincinnati Bengals at Cleveland Browns: The battle of Ohio losers. The Browns look atrocious and the Bengals are playing scrappy football. Cincy backup QB Ryan Fitzpatrick can beat Cleveland's third-string QB Ken Dorsey. Browns are favoured by three but the Bengals pick up their third win of the season. The only interesting question is whether the Browns can pick up their first offensive TD in more than a month.

Miami Dolphins at Kansas City Chiefs: Chiefs QB Tyler Thipgen is doing more interesting things with the offense and it is always tough for visitors to win in KC, but I like the Fins' chances. They seem to pull off improbable wins, such as in last week victory over the 49ers in which San Fran had twice the possession time. Miami plays conservatively and has yet to have more than a single turnover in any game all season. Fins are favoured by four and they will cover because QB Chad Pennington is a quality game manager and he won't be challenged by the Chiefs' defense which is last in sacks in the NFL.

New Orleans Saints at Detroit Lions: This is the best chance for the Lions to end their win-less season -- which is far from saying they will win this game. As the season progressed, the Saints offense got more diverse with RB Pierre Thomas emerging as a scoring threat (at least 87 yards and a TD in four of the past five games), taking pressure off QB Drew Brees and the receiving corps. It also spread the opposition defense. Thomas could have a great game against a Lions team that allows 168.5 running yards per game. Saints are favoured by 6.5 and they should cover considering the Lions have the 31st ranked defense (against the Saints' first ranked offense) and 30th ranked offense.

Pittsburgh Steelers at Tennessee Titans: Titans win and they capture home field advantage throughout the AFC finals; Steelers win, and they will capture home field advantage with a win next week at home against Cleveland. The Steelers have won five in a row, including against strong teams such as the Dallas Cowboys and Baltimore Ravens the past two weeks, while the Titans have gone 2-2 over the past month after starting 10-0. The Steelers defense is the best in business, reminiscent of the Steel Curtain. No team has amassed 300 yards against the Steelers this season. The Titans defense is without two key components, DT Albert Haynesworth and DE Kyle Vanden Bosch, both out for the rest of the regular season. This is a huge plus for a struggling Steelers' run game. It will be interesting to see what the Titans O-line can do to prevent the Steelers from getting to QB Kerry Collins. Titans have allowed just eight sacks in '08, while the Steelers have sacked the opposing quarterback 47 times. The Steelers win -- and they are 1.5 favourites on the road.

San Diego Chargers at Tampa Bay Buccaneers: The Bolts have to win for any chance to stay in the playoff pictures; the Bucs can assure themselves of a playoff spot with a victory. The Bucs have lost two in a row -- both against division rivals -- and return to their home field to face one of the best QBs in the game today, Philip Rivers. Rivers consistently hits WR Vincent Jackson and is starting to get the ball to TE Antonio Gates who has too often been a non-factor in games. The big reason the Bolts are 6-8 is that RB LaDainian Tomlinson has also been a non-factor all season. Jeff Garcia is expected to start under center for the Bucs and he should have no problem hitting his targets against the wretched Bolts pass defense. Bucs are favoured by three but I'm picking the Chargers to win because, as they say, the more desperate team often wins.

San Francisco 49ers at St. Louis Rams: Its the battle of interim coaches making the case to keep their jobs. The Niners have been a lot better since Mike Singletary took over as head coach on October 20, even being in most games that they've lost. The Rams have lost eight in a row under Jim Haslett after he debuted with a pair of upset wins against the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys and they have looked as bad as their record indicates. Turnovers have been their big problem, averaging three a game during their eight-game losing streak. The Rams defense is becoming more aggressive lately, challenging the QB -- but leaving the recievers open. Watch for QB Shaun Hill to throw the ball, especially with RB Frank Gore unlikely to play. San Fran is favoured by five and there is no reason to think they won't cover.

Buffalo Bills at Denver Broncos: Buffalo has really stunk later, winning just one of their past eight, after starting 5-1. The climb back to 500 is made more difficult with the health status of QB Trent Edwards and RB Marshawn Lynch up in the air. Sure Edwards has not been his earlier self as of late but he is still better than starting J.P. Losman. Broncos will likely be playing without CB Champ Bailey which gives the Bills some relief when throwing. If Lynch plays and they can get both the running and passing game going, the Broncos are in trouble. But that is a lot of if. QB Jay Cutler has just been named to the Pro Bowl and while I don't think he deserved it because it robbed Philip Rivers of his rightful spot, the honour is indicative of what Cutler can get done on the field. His job is made more difficult because the Broncos have to rely on their aerial game with injuries severely reducing the RBs available to play. The Bills will be able to provide double coverage, which Cutler doesn't mind throwing through -- or into. Potentially an explosive game with lots of scoring. I think Denver should come out on top but won't cover the seven point spread.

Houston Texans at Oakland Raiders: The Texans are lately looking like the team many expected them to be at the beginning of the season, winning four straight, including over Tennessee last week. The Raiders are awful, awful, awful. Even at home, where they are 1-6. Houston's Andre Johnson is making a case for being the best wide receiver in the league, but Oakland's CB Nnamdi Asomugha might be able to cover him to take him out of the game. Rookie RB Steve Slaton has ran for 100 or more yards in three consecutive games for the Texans and he'll face the 31st ranked rush defense on Sunday. QB Matt Schaub has been extremely impressive since returning from injury. Texans win and easily cover the seven point spread.

New York Jets at Seattle Seahawks: The Jets have lost all three games on the west coast so far this year and surrendered an average of more than 29 points per game in those losses. The 'Hawks have looked better over the past three or four weeks, although they did need overtime to beat the hapless Rams last Sunday. The Jets defense, stellar for much of the season, has looked tired the past two weeks. The Jets have continued to go with their ground game this year despite trading for Brett Favre in the off-season. His 17 picks probably have them gun shy. Still, he will face the worst pass defense in the NFL and the Jets need to trust his arm in order to make the big plays and win this one. They won't, however, and the Jets will lose to the 'Hawks despite being 4.5 point favourites for this one.

Atlanta Falcons at Minnesota Vikings: A match-up of two hot teams: the Vikings have won four in a row, the Panthers have their own three game winning streak. It is also a match-up of two of the three best running backs in the game: Michael Turner and Adrian Peterson. Turner might have a more difficult time facing the Vikes' top ranked run defense. Minny needs another good outing from QB Tarvaris Jackson who has returned and put up back-to-back great games (averaging nearly 140 passer rating, with five TDs vs. zero picks). Vikes defense will miss NT Pat Williams but Minny has deep reserves. Falcons WR Roddy White will be shadowed by CB Antoine Winfield, one of the best cover men in the game. Vikings are favoured by 3.5 and they should win and cover but it won't be surprising to see rookie QB Matt Ryan and the plucky Falcons pull off the upset. Indeed, if the game where in their home dome rather than the HHH Dome in Minneapolis, they'd probably be similarly favoured.

Philadelphia Eagles at Washington Redskins: The teams are going in opposite directions, the Skins losing five of six (including against the Bengals) and look unlikely to make the playoffs, the Eagles winners of three straight (including the Giants). Donovan McNabb should have little trouble scoring, facing the 23rd ranked red zone defense; opponents have scored 20 TDs and 14 FGs in 36 possession inside the Redskins 20 yard line. The Skins actually seem to get worse each game, with the defense falling apart and QB Jason Campbell looking alternately hesitant or sloppy. He'll come under heavy pressure from Philly's swarming defense. The Skins are having serious trouble scoring, scoring the fifth least points in the NFL, just nine more than the lowly Detroit Lions. The Eagles are favoured by five, but I'd be surprised if the margin were less than double digits.

Carolina Panthers at New York Giants: The winner clinches home field advantage through the NFC championship game, although the Panthers are not even guaranteed a playoff spot if they lose. (Ain't the NFL grand?) Carolina has won seven of eight, although they look middling on the road (3-3). Yet the Giants are struggling, losing two in a row, in part because they have lost key players -- WR Plaxico Burress because of his gun incident and RB Brandon Jacobs due to injury. QB Eli Manning looks like he has lost concentration at times and has struggled lately. Panthers have the best running duo in DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart, who have combined for just under 2000 yards and 23 rushing TDs. If the G-Men stop the Panthers running game, Jake Delhomme will throw the ball to Steve Smith. Giants are favoured by three, but I see the Panthers pulling off the upset.

Green Bay Packers at Chicago Bears: The Packers have lost six of their last seven, but that one win was a 37-3 trouncing of the Bears. And if you take out their own 51-29 trouncing at the hands of the New Orleans Saints on Monday Night Football in Week 12, the total margin of defeat in the Packers last four losses has been 12 points. Da Bears are favoured by four, but I see a Packers upset in the making. Aaron Rodgers is getting the yards and points. The problem for Green Bay has been its defense (allowing about 100 more points this year than they did through the first 14 games last year). Defense might not be a problem against the anemic Bears offense. Chicago is vulnerable, averaging just 260 yards of offense over its past six games.
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:37 AM

 
Any given Saturday

Baltimore Ravens at Dallas Cowboys: The final game at Texas Irving Stadium (unless the Boys finish fifth and face the other wild card winner in the NFC championship game, but that is unlikely). Interesting fact: The Ravens have won seven of their past nine, the Cowboys five of their past seven. The teams both lost to: the Pittsburgh Steelers and New York Giants. This match features two strong defenses; Dallas' is ranked seventh overall (7th against the run, 8th against the pass) and Baltimore's is rated second. Dallas has the better offense (ranked 8th), but it has been inconsistent and varied because of injuries. In the past two weeks, rookie RB Tashard Choice has 309 total yards catching and running, to make up for the loss of Marion Barber. Controversy dogs the Boys with Terrell Owens being TO, complaining that QB Tony Romo favours (room-mate) Jason Witten. Romo is banged up and was considered questionable for tonight's game. Baltimore's offense seems to get better every week as rookie QB Joe Flacco provide evidence of maturing exceptionally quick. Cowboys are favoured by four, but if they win it will probably be by a field goal. And if Romo can't start (questionable as of this morning), the Ravens win outright.
posted by Paul Tuns at 7:20 PM

 
Three and out

3. As part of his agreement with the New York Yankees, C.C. Sabathia will get a suite while on the road, rather than share a regular hotel room. Couldn't he upgrade on his own considering his $23 million annual salary.

2. The LA Angels have signed outfielder Juan Rivera to a three-year, $12.75 million deal. To me, that's a lot for a utility outfielder who hit 246/282/438 with 12 HRs in 89 games. And it also probably means the Angels are not in on the Manny Ramirez sweepstakes if they do not re-sign 1B Mark Teixeira.

1. New Yankee Stadium with the lights on:


posted by Paul Tuns at 11:10 AM

 
Four and down

4. Houston Texans' streaky season. They began with four losses, followed by a three-game winning streak, before dropping three in a row, and they are currently on a four-game winning streak. Strange. And if they broke up the losing streaks with a win each, they'd be in the playoff hunt.

3. If I could vote for MVP it would be: Indianapolis Colts QB Peyton Manning, Atlanta Falcons RB Michael Turner, Carolina Panthers RB DeAngelos Williams, Arizona Cardinals QB Kurt Warner. Unless San Diego makes the playoffs, then QB Philip Rivers would jump to first. If Denver wins the AFC West, consideration should given to removing the P from MVP so referee Ed Hochuli can get some votes?

2. Here is the percentage chance I give each AFC team to make it to the Super Bowl (assuming the New York Jets and Denver Broncos win their respective divisions): Indianapolis Colts 31%, Baltimore Ravens 29%, Pittsburgh Steelers 21%, New York Jets 10%, Tennessee Titans 8%, Denver Broncos 1%. If San Diego makes it, I'd put put the Colts and Ravens as almost equal at around 25%, the Colts and Steelers at 20%, the Jets 6%, Titans 4%. I haven't worked it out if the New England Patriots or Miami Dolphins win the AFC East and I don't see any team chance overtaking the Ravens for the final wild card berth.

1. Here is the percentage chance I give each NFC team to make it to the Super Bowl (assuming the Dallas Cowboys and Tampa Bay Buccaneers win the wild card spots and the Minnesota Vikings win the NFC North): Carolina Panthers 31%, Dallas Cowboys 20%, Minnesota Vikings 17%, Arizona Cardinals 14%, New York Giants 13%, Atlanta Falcons 5%. I can't see the Chicago Bears winning the NFC North. I don't think the Bucs replacing the Falcons as the sixth wild card seed makes a big difference, but the Philadelphia Eagles capturing the wild card spot would radically change things, moving the Panthers, Cowboys and Eagles into a three-way tie at 25%, followed by Vikings 9%, Giants 8%, Cards 8%.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:38 AM

 
Having trouble finding a gift for the person who has everything

The Washington Times reports that NASA will be selling two space shuttles for $42 million a piece after they retired them in 2010. The price tag includes air transport but not final land transport. The Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum has dibs on the remaining third shuttle. Unfortunately, only Americans can buy.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:39 AM

 
And does Santa have to pay customs duty?

Trade Diversion's Jonathan Dingel calculated the "US nominal average ad valorem tariff rate for (12 Days of) Christmas":

Drums 4.8%
Pipes 0%
Milking machines 0%
Swans 1.8%
Geese $.02/kg
Golden rings 5.5%
Calling birds 1.8%
French hens $.02/kg
Turtle doves 1.8%
Partridge 1.8%
Pear tree 0%
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:32 AM

 
The Palins

One of my problems with having Sarah Palin on the ticket was that the Palin family seemed decidedly down-market -- and it wasn't the teenage pregnancy that I found problematic. I look at the Palins and I see is the Clintons of Little Rock. I was positive that if they were elected, Todd Palin would get into fight with someone in Washington -- although you don't need to be from Alaska to get into a fight to slash another politician with a broken glass. Understanding that you can't blame the Palins for the behaviour of their future in-laws, this Daily Telegraph story tells you a lot about the social background of the first family of Alaska: "Sarah Palin daughter's future mother-in-law seized in drugs bust."
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:13 AM

 
Three and out

3. Ken Rosenthal of Fox Sports on the Seattle Mariners outfield: "Please, no more talk about how Endy Chavez, Franklin Gutierrez and Ichiro could give the Mariners the most formidable defensive outfield in the game. That outfield would have almost zero punch..." Corner outfielders need to hit for power -- and Seattle's don't.

2. Rosenthal's thoughts on Mark Teixiera are also worth reading. He says no player is worth $20 million a season for eight years (I disagree) and correctly notes that Teixeira's bat is not one of the ten best in baseball, so why all the fuss over a very, very good but far from superstar quality player? Because of his age (28) and consistency. He turns 29 in the opening month of the 2009 season, so you won't be paying for a lot of declining years (compared to signing a 30-something free agent for eight years). He averages 151 games a year (he's durable), he has a high on-base percentage (he hits and walks and looks at pitches), he is a switch-hitter (Rosenthal says one of the three best in the Majors), and plays excellent defense (value added). Today, that is worth $20 million a season to a consistent contender. So the LA Angels, Boston Red Sox and (perhaps) New York Yankees make a lot of sense. The Baltimore Orioles and Washington Nationals do not, because by the time they are ready to contend, he will likely be in decline.

1. Beat writer Sam Borden sent Peter Abraham at LoHud Yankees Blog lots of inside gossip about the Yankees and confirms what many already guessed about New York's pursuit of C.C. Sabathia: it was going to happen all along. Borden reported that the discussions in the organization began last off-season when they decided not to trade for him (and thus give up propsects). They chose to wait a year (and forego Johann Santana who eventually went to the New York Mets) and "take a gamble" that Sabathia would still be available this off-season. Good move, giving up only money rather than money and bodies.
posted by Paul Tuns at 5:22 PM

 
Bailing out the bailouters

The Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) blog reports:

"Additioanlly, Vnesheconombank, the state operated development bank that is in charge of the government’s $200 billion financial stimulus package (15% of Russian GDP), is now asking for $34 billion from the state to fortify it’s own books."
posted by Paul Tuns at 4:52 PM

 
Government made the housing bubble worst

New York Times headline: "Tax Break May Have Helped Cause Housing Bubble."
posted by Paul Tuns at 4:19 PM

 
Potentially significant shift in US endangered species policy































Jacob Leibenluft writes at Slate about the Fish and Wildlife Service recommending the jackass penguin (African penguin) be designated as an "endangered" species under U.S. law, and another six species be classified as "threatened" despite the fact that penguins are not native to the United States. (Before you say that they have disappeared due to climate change, know that penguins are a southern hemisphere species of bird.) The FWS thinking is that American pollution might be affecting their environment and their food supply.

Leibenluft explains:

"There's considerable evidence to suggest that climate change is contributing to shrinking penguin populations, but the Endangered Species Act has never before been used to regulate carbon emissions. Environmental groups hoped that would change with the recent listing of the polar bear, but the U.S. Department of the Interior set forth a rule earlier this month to prevent that interpretation of the act."

Putting aside the 'considerable evidence' that might not really be, think about the ramifications of such a policy shift. American industry could be crippled in order to (supposedly) protect any number of (supposedly) vulnerable species, anywhere in the world. It is a recipe for disaster. Thankfully, the Bush administration has resisted the idea of invoking protection from climate change as a basis of protecting threatened and endangered species. Think what might happen in the next four years, though.

I will again pose my question: what does it matter if any species of penguin -- or any other animals -- disappears from the face of the earth? I love penguins. I enjoy watching them when our family goes to a zoo or aquarium and eventually my wife reminds me that we can't stare at them all day. But I still don't understand why maintaining the status quo of today's biodiversity is such a necessity.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:34 AM

 
Best books of the year

I should wait until the end of the year because I have a lot of books I plan to read between now and the end of the Christmas break, but perhaps this list can also serve as an excellent source for Christmas present ideas.

The Honourable Mentions: Some of the more interesting books that come up short of being great books include: The Logic Of Life: The Rational Economics Of An Irrational World by Tim Harford; Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions by Dan Ariely; The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives by Leonard Mlodinow; Your Brain on Cubs: Inside the Heads of Players and Fans edited by Dan Gordon; The Genius: How Bill Walsh Reinvented Football And Created An NFL Dynasty by David Harris. Also, had I picked up Spin-Free Economics: A No-Nonsense Nonpartisan Guide to Today's Global Economic Debates by Nariman Behravesh earlier this year (than this past week) I'd probably have it on my top five.

5: The Cult of the Presidency: America’s Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power by Gene Healy. The book, published by the Cato Institute, examines the growing power of the president, partly rooted in the trend of seeking federal solutions to every problem, which even Republicans have participated in. A call for a return to the constitutionally limited presidency.

4. Europe Between the Oceans: 9000 BC-AD 1000 by Barry Cunliffe. This is a (at times speculative) history of Europe that relies on geography, history, economics and anthropology. In short, it is what one reviewer called economic archeology. An important topic that is written in prose that doesn't quite sing, but does hold the reader's interest. The focus is on trade and transportation. There is also some lovely artwork in the volume.

3. One Man's America: The Pleasures and Provocations of Our Singular Nation by George F. Will. His quadrennial collection of columns reminds readers that there is more to conservatism than tax cuts and or making war.

2. Traffic: Why We Drive The Way We Do (and What It Says About Us) by Tom Vanderbilt. An endlessly fascinating book, full of interesting tidbits of information about how people drive and why they drive the way they do, and what authorities around the world are doing to change driving habits. Probably the most captivating and enjoyable book I've read in years ... if it weren't for this year's #1.

1. The Price of Everything: The Price of Everything: A Parable of Possibility and Prosperity by Russell Roberts. This is, hands down, the best book of the year. With very few exceptions, I don't enjoy fiction and like didactic fiction even less, but Roberts' short parable should be put in the hands of every young person (high school or university student) or open-minded person who needs to be taught why the world works because of prices: namely, that it is the most efficient way to harness knowledge because no one (or group) can effectively or fairly plan the use of resources. It is a fun read, but more importantly, an insightful one.
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:44 AM

 
Ezra Levant on censorship, double standards and what to do with hateful comments

Canada's freedom fighter, Ezra Levant, reports on his blog:

"The Canadian Human Rights Commission has rejected a human rights complaint filed against a radical Muslim imam who published an viciously bigoted book about gays, Jews, women, Christians, and even called for the murder of infidels."

He points to a complaint Marc Lebuis (it is in French) filed against the Muslim cleric Abou Hammaad Sulaiman Al-Hayiti, which the Canadian Human Rights Commission (predictably) dismissed. According to Levant, Al-Hayiti states in a new book:

* Homosexuals and lesbians should be "exterminated in this life"
* "Homosexuals caught performing sodomy are beheaded"
* "men are superior to women and better than them"
* "men have a more complete intellect and memory than women"
* "... a Muslim must never put his brother in Islam at the same level as an Infidel. In fact, to place Infidels at equality with Muslims is one of the greatest form of ignorance and injustice"
* "It is because of this religion of lies, which goes against human nature, that the West is now full of perversity, corruption and adultery"
* Jews "spread corruption and chaos on earth"
* Most Jews "seek only material goods and money, apart from that, they have nothing"
* "owning slaves is not prohibited"

Levant observes that these statements meet the section 13(1) requirements for hate or likely to cause hate under the Canada Human Rights Act, but observes: "Gays, women, Buddhists, Jews, etc., do have human rights that can be offended only when white supremacists do the offending. When radical Muslims are doing the offending, gays, women, Jews, etc., can just get a thicker skin." Not that a human rights complaint is the answer to such vile statements, but the double standard -- that Muslims can get away with saying things that Christians must apologize and pay fines for -- is galling.

What to do, though, with such hate-filled comments? Levant says:

"Dear reader, don't get me wrong. I don't believe it should be against the law to have this much hate in your heart. I'd want to make sure that Al-Hayiti's calls to violence (cut an apostate's neck, kill Hindus and Buddhists, etc.) didn't meet the standard of criminal incitement, and I'd hope that CSIS was attending his sermons to make sure he wasn't going even further off the cuff. But plain old-fashioned anti-Semitism, misogyny, anti-gay bigotry, etc., ought to be legal. The answer is denunciation, debate, marginalization, etc. -- not government censorship."
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:51 PM

 
How would the Liberals be worse?

The Conservative government is ready to spend its way into a massive deficit. CBC.ca reports:

"A federal economic stimulus package will likely lead to a deficit in the $20 billion to $30 billion range for the 2009-10 fiscal year, a Prime Minister's Office official told CBC News on Thursday.

The figure includes the $5 billion deficit the Finance Ministry projected on Wednesday for the next fiscal year."

To be clear, much of that is not stimulus, nor is it temporary. CTV reports:

"The federal government is expected to post at least four years of budget deficits even before Ottawa spends a dime on stimulating the economy, suggests papers released by the Finance Department.

Ottawa is officially projecting deficits of about $5 billion next year and $5.5 billion in the 2010-11 fiscal period.

But applying the methodology used by the department beyond the next two fiscal years yields further shortfalls of $4 billion and $1 billion the following years."

And whenever you talk to a Conservative hanger-on, they will tell you it would be worse if the Liberals were in power. How? Jean Chretien's Liberals actually cut spending and balanced the budget.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:32 PM

 
Four and down

4. Motivation. I've discussed before in 4 and down about what motivates teams and players at this point of the schedule, if they are not in the playoff picture. For the Detroit Lions it must be avoiding a 0-16 season. For the New Orleans Saints, who were eliminated last week, this Sunday's game in Detroit, the motivation should be to avoid being the only team to lose to Detroit. I have said several times since early November that this is the only game I thought the Lions had any chance to win and it won't surprise me if the game is really, really close.

3. The Pittsburgh Steelers are cool. Cool as in relaxed. In both of their last two games they trailed going into the fourth quarter -- at home against the Cowboys and on the road in Baltimore, two teams currently in a playoff position. And both times they remained relaxed but focused and got the job done. It's a great sign of the growing maturity of QB Ben Roethlisberger. In many ways, it is like Peyton Manning's ability to lift the Colts on his shoulders to carry them to victory.

2. The disappearing Titans. Watching the Tennessee Titans in recent weeks, even before their accumulation of injuries, Tenny seems less a team to be feared in the playoffs than one vulnerable to any other contender that might make it to the post-season.

1. Pro Bowl injustice. One of the inevitable and inevitably fun things about All Star and Pro Bowl selections is the debate they engender. I generally have no problem with the selection of the Pro Bowl squads that were announced Tuesday, but I simply do not understand the exclusion of Philip Rivers from the AFC squad. The San Diego Chargers QB is, by some statistical measures, the best in the NFL. A decent case could be made that the Indianapolis Colts' Peyton Manning should probably be the starting QB but I don't get picking Brett Favre (New York Jets) and Jay Cutler (Denver Broncos) ahead of Rivers. Rivers has the best passer rating in the NFL (101.4), and the best in the AFC by six points, and more than 13 ahead of Cutler and nearly 15 ahead of Favre. Rivers is tied with Drew Brees of the New Orleans Saints for the most TDs in the NFL (28), four more than Cutler and seven more than Favre. Cutler has about 300 more passing yards than Rivers, but Rivers has about 500 more yards than Favre. He also makes more bigger plays, having 11 throws of 40 yards or more, compared to just seven for Favre and Cutler. Rivers also has fewer picks (11) than Cutler (15) and Favre (17). Stat-wise, Rivers is good enough to start, but Manning is something special and is exciting to watch. But it is an injustice that Rivers will be watching the Pro Bowl rather than playing in it. You can't help but think that Rivers is being penalized because his team has a sub-500 record. But the Chargers would be much worse than 6-8 if it weren't for Rivers.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:51 PM

 
Three and out

3. This might be of interest to non-baseball fans. The Mental Floss blog has a multi-sport list of what teams were almost called. The NBA Toronto Raptors were down to nine names and they chose the Jurassic Park-inspired Raptors, which was perhaps the best of a bad lot (Hogs? Dragons?) The Florida Marlins were very close to being the Florida Flamingos and the New York Mets were almost the Burros or Continentals -- things quite different than the Metropolitans. In the NHL, I would have liked the Minnesota Freeze rather than the Wild.

2. The pair of alphabet soup starting pitchers (C.C. Sabathia and A.J. Burnett) signed by the New York Yankees earlier this month were introduced to the media, the fans and the city -- in their ballpark, Yankee Stadium. One last hurrah. I think it seems desperate, but I love it, too.

1. Mid-day Tuesday, a number of sources were saying free agent SS Rafael Furcal was returning to the Atlanta Braves after three seasons with the Dodgers, but later in the day there were reports that the deal was not complete. On Wednesday, Furcal signed a three-year deal worth at least $30 million to stay with LA, which is worth about $3 million a year less than the three-year deal he is coming off of. Braves GM Frank Wren is furious, though, saying he thought he had a deal and has vowed not to deal with Wasserman Media Group, the agency -- not just the agent -- that represents Furcal. When reminded by an SI.com reporter that the agency is one of the largest in the sport, Wren said: "When you can't trust who you're doing business with, you can't do business with them. It's plain and simple." Problem is the collective bargaining agreement between MLB and the MLBPA (owners and players' union) prohibits such boycotts. The more interesting question is how often do players back out -- or seem to back out of -- deals that general managers sincerely believe were agreed to by all parties. And conversely, how often teams back out of done deals. Apparently not often; Yahoo! Sports reports, "Several general managers and agents contacted by Yahoo! said Thursday the term sheet constitutes a handshake agreement, and couldn’t recall a situation when such an agreement was broken."
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:57 PM

 
All these years, maybe Santa has been saying 'Hoe, hoe, hoe'

LifeSiteNews.com reports:

"Christmas shoppers were shocked this week to find men and women dressed up as Santa Claus on some of the busiest streets in Toronto, handing out condoms.

The publicity stunt was arranged by Durex, the condom manufacturer."

The press release from Durex said:

"This holiday season, Durex(R) wants lovers to really feel the Love ... Helping Canadians get in the mood to wrap their packages, Durex and Santa will start celebrating the holidays by handing out Love condoms this Tuesday, December 16, 2008 in downtown Toronto. Giving never felt so good!"

What a disgusting publicity stunt, and adolescent press release.
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:47 PM

 
Any given Thursday

Indianapolis Colts at Jacksonville Jaguars: The six-point spread is smaller than it would have been if Jax didn't beat Green Bay last week. Don't put a lot of measure in that result, because the Packers have a knack for finding a way to lose a game. Indy is the hottest team around, riding a seven-game winning streak. Peyton Manning is buttressing his MVP credentials, throwing the ball to four targets -- his three wide receivers and TE Dallas Clark -- and the Colts have the sixth best passing offense. They don't run the ball very well (30th overall), but they only employ it enough to keep opposing defenses honest. Manning has thrown 10 TDs and 10 picks on the road in '08, but the Jags employ a pressure defense that leaves receivers wide open. The Colts should be able to feast on Jax and they will easily cover the six-point spread, partly for the aforementioned offense-related reasons, partly because the Indy defense is getting better, too. Watch DEs Robert Mathis and Dwight Freeney put lots of pressure on Jax QB David Garrard.
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:06 PM

 
Paul Weyrich, RIP

Paul Weyrich, one of the most consequential conservatives of the past 30 years, has passed away at the age of 66. Grover Norquist said it best:

"The idea of individual liberty and a limited constitutional government has been around a long time. Liberty doesn’t need new ideas to advance, but institutions to give muscle and skeletal structure to a political movement for liberty. That is how Paul Weyrich changed the world for the better.

Paul Weyrich created institutions and networks that incubated new and old powerful policies and strategies to advance liberty. The Heritage Foundation. ALEC. The Free Congress Foundation. The Kingston meeting. Many of the structures of the “religious right.' [Including the Moral Majority.] He understood that only freedom could successfully promote traditional values. He brought leaders of various freedom impulses together. Most of the successes of the Conservative movement since the 1970s flowed from structures, organizations, and coalitions he started, created or nurtured."

I would change one thing Norquist said: only traditional values can successfully promote liberty. But about the conservative infrastructure, he is exactly right. It would hard to imagine what the movement would look like today without Weyrich's influence. As Ed Feulner, the man with whom Weyrich created the Heritage Foundation, said, "When this nation was in serious danger of running off the rails, no one did more than Paul Weyrich to keep it on the right track."

That is not to say he is always right. I can't find a piece I wrote eight or nine years ago criticizing his call for conservatives to retrench -- throw out our TVs, homeschool our own children and separate ourselves from the culture. It doesn't work that way and he soon figured that out and came back to fight for freedom and morality once again. He has been surpassed in fame and modern day influence, but that is only because many of today's conservatives are standing on his shoulders.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:52 AM

 
Do journalists excessively cover other journalists losing their jobs

The teaser at Slate implies Jack Shafer is going to write about media narcissism in Slate today, when really all he does is discuss the technological changes that are making dead tree newspapers obsolete. Still, he has this to say:

"The misery of a laid-off or bought-out journalist isn't greater than that of a sacked bond trader, a RIF-ed clerk, or a fired autoworker. The only reason we're so well-informed about journalists' suffering is they have easy access to a megaphone."

There are many, many reasons why Joe the Journalist is going to have his getting laid-off story told and Paul the Plumber is not. Part of it is that Joe the Journalist is known to people -- he has a byline. More importantly, Joe the Journalist is known to other journalists.

But aside from this practical reason is the reason why the media does so many stories about the media, and it is not just because it is a topic journalists supposedly know something about. It is the subject in which most journalists are interested because there is nothing more fascinating to a journalist than his own craft and his fellow craftsmen.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:18 AM

 
Gerson defends compassionate 'conservatism'

Michael Gerson writes a sometimes snarky column responding to critics of compassionate conservatism [sic], including John O'Sullivan. Gerson says:

"During the past eight years, the Bush administration focused on reforming public schools to make them perform for minority students (with generally encouraging results), providing prescription drug benefits for low-income seniors (at a lower cost than many predicted), distributing life-saving treatments for millions of dying Africans, and encouraging faith-based social services for addicts and directionless children. No legislative solution is perfect or complete. But which priority would O'Sullivan conservatives have struck off the list?"

As policy goals of a Republican administration, all of them are laudable. I just wouldn't call it conservatism. Maybe that is conservatism's problem, but how programs that do not respect limited government can be classified as conservative, I don't know: education, assisting faith-based programs and drug benefits for seniors are, at best, state concerns or perhaps the domain of parents, faith-based groups and the market. The problem so often with Gerson is that compassionate policies are always necessary and always something the federal government should do and conservative critics of those policies are always libertarian or isolationist. But Washington can't do everything. What's next, a pony for every child?
posted by Paul Tuns at 6:54 AM

 
Three and out

3. To answer a question, my second favourite team is the New York Mets. I also can cheer -- or more accurately, appreciate -- the St. Louis Cardinals and Oakland A's, mostly because of their history but also because I cheered for them (and the Yanks and Mets) in the 1980s. I quite liked Whitey Herzog's Cards (Ozzie Smith, Willie McGhee, Terry Pendleton, Lee Smith) and Tony LaRussa's A's (Rickey Henderson, Dennis Ekersley, Dave Stewart, Carney Lansford).

2. I like the Baltimore Orioles signing SS Cesar Izturis because he is an excellent fielder and Baltimore's young pitchers need to have confidence in the glovemen behind them, especially up the middle, if they are to develop. Two years at $5 million -- and up to $1.2 million in incentives -- isn't that bad, even if Izturis has an atrocious career 299 OBP. This is about defense, which the Orioles need, and fortunately defense comes cheap.

1. Peter Gammons said on ESPN tonight that the two LA teams, the Dodgers and Angels, will battle it out for Manny Ramirez. He also said there is little chance of ManRam appearing on the YES Network in pinstripes. All three need Manny's big bat, although the Angels' outfield is a little crowded and their focus is on re-signing their 1b Mark Teixeira. I'd love to see him in a Yankee uniform, if only to add to the circus-like atmosphere of already over-hyped Yankee-Red Sox games. My guess is he will end up returning to the Dodgers because 1) they most need the big bat (they whole team climbed on Manny's shoulders for the final eight weeks to make the playoffs), they have the money and Ramirez likes LA.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:44 PM

 
Four and down

4. How quickly things change. Three weeks ago, the prohibitive favourites to represent the AFC and NFC were the New York Giants and Tennessee Titans. They were strongly favoured to face each other in the Super Bowl, both dominating teams on defense. The G-Men have lost two in a row and the Titans look beatable even when they win.

3. The Giants could lose their first-round bye if they lose against both the Carolina Panthers and Minnesota Vikings in the final two games of the year. What tremendous scheduling for this weekend. The two top teams in each conference face each other: the Giants host the Carolina Panthers and the Pittsburgh Steelers visit the Tennessee Titans. Of course it is a complete accident, but what tremendous scheduling nonetheless.

2. I have believed in the San Diego Chargers all year and they still might make the post-season. Despite being three games behind in November, the Bolts still have a plausible if improbable path to the playoffs. They need the Denver Broncos to lose next week at home against the Buffalo Bills and must win themselves on the road in Tampa Bay. The Broncs should beat the Bills and the Bucs should be the favourites at home, but in the unlikely case that the underdogs win, the AFC West will be decided in San Diego in the final week when the Broncos come to town.

1. One thing I dislike about Monday Night Football is how the three play-by-play announcers will start talking about something -- the future of the QB or coach -- and totally ignore what is going on in the game for an entire quarter at a time. Yesterday, ESPN's threesome talked about Andy Reid and Donovan McNabb for 40 minutes while barely commenting on the game itself.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:40 PM

 
I nodded in agreement at every word

Rick McGinnis writes in the Metro:

"Becoming the father to daughters means that you start finding glitter on your clothes, mermaid stickers on the bottom of your socks, and many more loads of pink laundry than you ever thought possible in a household unoccupied by drag queens or Playboy bunnies.

It also means ballet lessons..."

I have described my house, populated by three girls under the age of six, as a "giant pepto bismo explosion" so I know what he's talking about regarding the pink laundry. Perhaps Rick can answer me this: why do girls need to change four or five times before lunch? As for the glitter, just last night I had an incident with glitter art that hadn't dried. And the stickers? All the time, including one sock from which I can't remove the remains of some Disney princess.

Still, is there anything a dad won't do for his daughters? Apparently not:


posted by Paul Tuns at 9:18 AM

 
Something just doesn't feel right about this...

And I'm not talking about the Kennedys treating a seat in Congress as family heir looms. The New York Times headline says, "Kennedy Seeks to Prove Qualifications for Senate Bid." Isn't there something unseemly about openly campaigning for the Senate appointment to fill Hillary Clinton seat for four years. Never mind, the dynastic politics of Clinton and Kennedy trading a Senate seat is the worse thing about all of this.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:11 AM

 
AGS revisited

Chicago Bears 27, New Orleans Saints 24 (OT): I predicted the Saints would upset the Bears in their own den. What was I thinking -- as good as Drew Brees is, an aerial specialist in the windy confines of Soldier Field. If not for a field goal with less than four minutes left, I would have been right, though.

New York Jet 31, Buffalo Bills 27: It was a surprisingly close game and the Jets needed a fumble recovery returned 11 yards by Shaun Ellis for a TD to win. I thought the Jets would easily cover the seven points. Bills QB J.P. Losman threw three picks and had his second consecutive game with a passer rating under 46. Why the Bills were throwing in the final two minutes of the game instead of playing it safe and killing the clock with running plays, although the fumble was just one of four turnovers for the Bills.

Indianapolis Colts 31, Detroit Lions 21: The game was tied 21-21 with nine minutes left in the game. But as he always seems to, Peyton Manning lifted the Colts onto his shoulders to carry them to victory (28 of 37 passing, 318 yards, 1 TD, no picks, 110 passer rating). But I called Indy to win by 17 even though I said, "common sense says don't bet on them to beat the Lions by two scores and additional field goal."

Jacksonville Jaguars 20, Green Bay Packers 16: I thought the Packers would win. They blew a 13-7 and 16-14 leads. Losing to Jax which has barely looked like an NFL game, has to smart.

San Diego Chargers 22, Kansas City Chiefs 21: I thought the Bolts would win and cover the five points, but the Chiefs are tough to beat at home. San Diego almost didn't win as Chiefs led 21-3 in the third quarter and 21-10 with five minutes left. Chargers QB Philip Rivers threw a pair of TD passes in the final 73 seconds, leading a fast 89-yard drive from his own 11 yard line. The Bolts then they got back an on-side kick and Rivers led a four-play, 61-yard drive that ended with a four yard throw to Malcolm Floyd. Amazing.

Miami Dolphins 14, San Francisco 49ers 9: A surprisingly fun game to watch. Miami has not allowed a TD in three games. Dolphins have not given up more than a single turnover in any game all season -- no team has gone all season without a multiple turnover game. The Niners had possession for almost twice as long as the Fins and played some great football, yet Miami won because the Dolphins defense was solid when it needed to be (SF didn't score either time they got into the red zone). I correctly predicted the Dolphins would win but not cover the seven point spread.

Seattle Seahawks 23, St. Louis Rams 20: Someone had to win. Seattle was down 23-10 with three minutes left. 'Hawks run in a score to tie and get a field go on the final play of the game. I thought the 'Hawks would beat the three-point spread.

Atlanta Falcons 13, Tampa Bay Buccaneers 10 (OT): TB's run defense has looked suspect lately; Falcons RB Michael Turner ran for 152 yards on 32 carries, with one touchdown. QB Matt Ryan spread around the offense, with five Falcons making catching plays for 17 or more yards. I predicted Atlanta wins but doesn't beat the three-point spread.

Houston Texans 13, Tennessee Titans 12: The Titans haven't looked as fearsome recently, but the Texans have been on fire lately. Houston WR Andre Johnson had a career game: 207 yards and a TD. Houston QB Matt Schaub has looked very good again: 23 for 39 passing, 284 yards, 1 TD, 90.1 passer rating. I thought the Titans would win.

Cincinnati Bengals 20, Washington Redskins 13: The Skins have looked pretty awful the past two months and nothing screams suckiness like losing to the Bungles. RB Clinton Portis spent the week chirping his coach and complaining about his lack of carries. In the game he was given the ball 25 times and he averaged just three yards per carry and the Skins still lost. I thought the Skins would win under the assumption that one can never over-estimate Cincy.

Minnesota Vikings 25, Arizona Cardinals 14: I thought the Cards would win. It was never close, with the Vikes going into the half leading 28-0. I didn't think Minny had any chance because Tarvaris Jackson was starting at QB. He had four TD passes and a 135.5 passer rating.

Carolina Panthers 30, Denver Broncos 10: I didn't think the Panthers would cover the 7.5 point spread, but it is hard to keep games close when 400 yards of offense is surrendered. The Broncs defense gave up 20 answered points after the first quarter.

New England Patriots 49, Oakland Raiders 26: I said the Pats win but don't beat the seven points because I assumed Matt Cassel's grieving his father's death last week and playing back-to-back games on the West coast would be too much. Cassel threw four TD passes as the Pats led 21-0 in the first quarter and 28-7 part way throughout the second. Pats scored a TD in every quarter.

Pittsburgh Steelers 13, Baltimore Ravens 9: Neither team gave up a TD until the final minute of the game, when Pittsburgh came from behind to win in Baltimore (on a disputed call over whether the ball broke the invisible plane of the end zone line). Ben Roethlisberger led a 92-yard, 13 play drive in 2:53 to score in the final minute to take the lead. I thought the Ravens would win.

Dallas Cowboys 20, New York Giants 8: I thought the Cowboys would win their penultimate game at home, but thought it would be closer. Tony Romo played hurt and it was, as the broadcasters never ceased pointing out, a gutsy performance. The Giants were missing too many pieces (RB Brandon Jacobs, WR Plaxico Burress, and others). For the second week in a row, rookie RB Tashard Choice led the Cowboys in both receiving and rushing yards. He has definitely stepped up when Dallas needed it.

Philadelphia Eagles 30, Cleveland Browns 10: It wasn't difficult picking the Eagles to win and cover the 14 point spread because the Browns hadn't scored a touchdown in three games. After last night's showing, that should be changed to they haven't scored an offensive touchdown in four games. Philly was in control all game, Donovan McNabb was solid despite a pair of meaningless miscues, and the Eagles defense never relented in their pressure of Ken Dorsey. Yet, it could have been worse were it not for a pair of interceptions the Browns caught in the end zone. One, by CB Brandon MacDonald, was returned for 98 yards, a record for a runback after a pick without scoring.
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:47 AM

 
Three and out

3. With Greg Maddux retiring, ESPN.com has a poll asking who is the greatest pitcher of all time. Considering the question is, "where does Maddux rank among the all-time greats?" why is the list of pitchers only go back (by their own admission) to the 1940s. Some excellent pitchers are on the ballot for ranking, but it is a little heavy on modern pitching, with no Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Cy Young, Eddie Plank or Grover Cleveland Alexander. And if it is all time, why not the pitchers of the 1800s, who threw from just 45 feet away, such as Tim Keefe? But even if the cut-off is the 1940s, where is Bob Feller, Bob Gibson or Robin Roberts? And why no relievers? For the record, my top five of all time (in order): Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Greg Maddux, Mariano Rivera and Cy Young.

2. If I was a Philadelphia Phillies fan I don't think I'd like giving 46-year-old southpaw starter Jamie Moyer a two-year, $13 million deal. He seems ageless now, but a lot can happen to two years, especially to a pitcher in this late 40s.

1. Tim Brown at Yahoo! Sports says four teams are in the running for free agent SS Rafael Furcal: the Oakland A’s, Los Angeles Dodgers, Kansas City Royals and another, unidentified team. Furcal's agent said the Toronto Blue Jays are no longer are in the running, which is hardly a surprise considering that Furcal is looking for a four year deal in the vicinity of $10 mil per season. To my mind, none of the named teams make sense -- too expensive for the A's and Royals and too risky for the Dodgers who need a reliable SS to compete in '09. Would like to know who the other team is.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:56 PM

 
Four and down

4. Packers started 2-0 but have been an awful 3-9 since then although four of their losses have been by four points or less. That has led to the inevitable question: would Brett Favre have won them. Just for the record: QB Aaron Rodgers: 23 TDs, 12 interceptions, 91.8 passer rating; Favre: 21 TDs, 16 interceptions, 86.5 passer rating.

3. The Washington Redskins started 6-2, but have been 1-5 since. Washington Post sports columnist Thomas Boswell quotes linebacker London Fletcher: "If we were just a bad football team, you wouldn't take it so hard. We're so close to it. We had the same talent when we were 6-2." Boswell says it is hard to not feel bad for the Skins, a bunch of veterans, some former stars, who are a win-now team that is watching its playoff chances slip away.

2. Tampa Bay Buccaneers defensive coordinator Monte Kiffin will leave the job he has held for 13 years to join his son at the University of Tennessee in the Southeastern Conference. Lane Kiffin joined Tennessee earlier this Fall after being canned by the Oakland Raiders. During the elder Kiffin's tenure running TB's D, the team has been near the top of the defensive tables and was a key component of the team's 2003 Super Bowl.

1. On the weekend, former Cowboys and Dolphins coach and current Fox pre-game commentator Jimmie Johnson raised the idea of Miami Dolphins Chad Pennington winning the MVP. Unlikely but not outrageous. Pennington has 3,218 yards, 14 TDs compared to six picks, and a 95.1 passer rating. I'm not sold, but he controls the game efficiently and the Fins are 9-5 (thus far) a year after going 1-15. More credit, though should go to coach Tony Sparano and team vice president, and architect of the team, Bill Purcells.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:54 PM

 
Canadian politics

What a horrifically dull headline, eh?

L. Ian MacDanald of the Montreal Gazette writes perhaps the best sentence of the year in Canadian punditry: "Being descended from Russian nobility, Michael Ignatieff evidently knows how to run a palace coup."

And here is my analysis for LifeSiteNews.com on the political intrigue of the last few weeks and how it affects social conservatives.

Unbelievable that only 15 days ago we were preparing for the possibility of Prime Minister Stephane Dion. Two weeks is a lifetime in politics.
posted by Paul Tuns at 6:07 PM

 
Economic truth #1

Michael Shermer, in a symposium on what science tells us about the financial turmoil:

"The economy is a product of human action, not of human design."

This is almost impossible for people to understand and the ignorance of this fact leads to all sorts of economic (and political) mischief.
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:58 PM

 
Big government works better for Dems

W. James Antle, III, writes in The American Spectator Online that Democrats make better big government liberals than Republicans and the voters no it. In other words, while it behooves the Republicans to make better arguments and come up with smarter policies, they shouldn't attempt to do so by mimicking the Democrats and trying to out-Big Government their opponents. Antle concludes:

"[T]he Republicans were in better shape after their spending battles than they were after eight years of big-government conservatism under Nixon-Ford or Bush 43. That's obviously not because the American electorate is comprised of doctrinaire libertarians. It probably has more to do with the fact there already exists a political party willing to satisfy voters' needs for new government programs. That party is called the Democrats."
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:22 AM

 
Washington Examiner profiles my favourite blogger/economist

Tyler Cowen.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:17 AM

 
First rule of politics, period

Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post today:

"The only way to eliminate lobbying and special interests is to eliminate government."

Everyone should repeat that five times. The general public 10 times. Liberals 50.

Samuelson explains why this is true:

"The more powerful government becomes, the more lobbying there will be. So, paradoxically, Obama's ambitions for more expansive government will promote special pleading."

As Robertson observes, the past six months proves this. General Moters. Chysler. AIG. Citigroup. JPMorgan Chase.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:10 AM

 
Three and out

3. As a Yankee fan, one of the most frightening moments in any game the last few years was seeing Kyle Farnsworth take the mound in a close situation, which was almost always when the skipper called on the reliever one acquaintance of mine called Farnswacker. You see, Farnsworth was capable of blowing heat past three straight batters or getting lit up for a bunch of runs, or at least putting enough batters on base to make things interesting and not in the good way. KC Royals fans will now get to know that feeling at the cost of $9.25 million over the next two seasons.

2. Nothing quite says one's pitching rotation is in shambles like signing a guy who hasn't pitched in the Majors in either of the past two seasons because of shoulder injuries. The Toronto Blue Jays signed right-handed starter Matt Clement, who has assembled the definition of average over nine years with four clubs (87-86 with a 4.47 ERA in nine seasons).

1. Congratulations to Baseball Prospectus for (finally) getting two of its writers, Will Carroll and Christina Kahrl, into the Baseball Writers Association of America. (Or, per Dodgeball, the American Baseball Writers Association of America.) Carroll writes about it here; Karhl here.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:43 PM

 
Four and down

4. Mathematically, the Philadelphia Eagles do not need to win their Monday Night Football match up with the Cleveland Browns, but it will go a long way to keeping their (slim) playoff hopes alive. With the Dallas Cowboys and Washington Redskins -- two division rivals and teams Philly are in a race with for one or two wild card spots, depending on whether the Atlanta Falcons beat Tampa Bay this weekend -- there is a sense of must-win for Philly as they host Cleveland.

3. Some football pundits have said that the Eagles' 7-5-1 record is an advantage because their tie against the Cincinnati Bengals will mean they have a better record if they finish 'tied' with nine wins with (probably) Dallas or Washington. That's true but misses a big point: a win, rather than a tie would have been even better, because then Philly wouldn't be tied in wins; they'd be ahead. And the Eagles should have been able to beat the Bengals.

2. Despite being 4-9, the Browns are a perfect 2-0 on Monday Night games this year. They beat the Bills in Buffalo in week 11 (29-27) and the New York Giants in Cleveland in week 6 (35-14).

1. Nothing to do with the NFL, but a potential future NFLer, Oklahoma State QB Sam Bradford won the 74th Heisman Trophy in the second closest three-way race for the award. Bradford had an incredible 2008 season: 4,464 yards, 48 TDs, 68.3% completion rate, 186.29 passer rating, on route to a 12-1 season. He threw only six picks all year and is in the BCS title game in January. Last year, he set the NCAA record for TD passes by a freshman (36) and was The Sporting News 'Freshman of the Year'. He could be something special in the NFL. Or maybe not (see Gino Torretta, 1992 Heisman Trophy winner who spent four seasons playing backup QB on four teams, or Eric Crouch, the 2002 Nebraska QB who was part of the closest three-way voting for the Heisman, who never played a game at QB but eventually became the fourth-string QB for the CFL's Toronto Argonauts). If you watch the SI.com slide show of the past 20 Heisman Trophy winners, few of them, especially the QBs, went on to have a significant NFL career.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:23 PM

 
Headline of the day

From the Sunday Times (London): "Pakistan 'linked to 75% of all UK terror plots', warns Gordon Brown." The paper reports:

"Gordon Brown demanded "action, not words" from Pakistan today, blaming Pakistani militants for last month's attack on Mumbai and revealing that three quarters of the gravest terror plots under investigation in the UK had links to Pakistan."

Sure, but will Brown back his "action, not words" comments with actions, not words.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:58 AM

 
Literature as politics

There is obviously a political aspect to most literature, but Harvard wants to reduce the teaching of literature to politics. In this weekend's Financial Times, Christopher Caldwell explains:

"The Harvard English department announced plans this week to restructure its curriculum for undergraduates. 'We are diminishing the role of chronology as the absolute, as the only organising rubric,' the professor Daniel Donoghue told the website Inside Higher Ed, “to combine it with genres and with geography as equally viable ways of thinking about literature and studying literature.” The standard survey course on the literature of the British Isles, English 10, must go. The new system will allow more focus.

There is nothing wrong with focus. As Matthew Arnold wrote: “A schoolboy, who, as they did in the times of ignorance at Eton, read his Homer and Horace through, and then read them through again, and so went on until he knew them by heart, is not, in my opinion, so very much to be pitied.” But such immersion is not what Harvard has in mind. Its plans reveal a confusion about what a college English department is supposed to do and reopen the question of whether English is a worthy subject of university study.

Under the new regime, students will take courses in four “affinity groups” or 'common-ground modules': 'Arrivals,' 'Poets,' 'Diffusions' and 'Shakespeares'. Two of these ('Poets' and 'Shakespeares') are consistent with English as it has been taught at Harvard for a century. The other two are not. “There is no such thing as writing that is indigenous or ‘native’ to England,” runs a copy of the department’s guidelines for 'Arrivals' obtained by the Harvard Crimson. 'All the great writing between the 7th and the 12th century is produced by invaders and immigrants who knew that "they" came from somewhere else.'

This is a banality dressed up as a provocation. English literature surveys have always stressed the influence on English writers of foreign ones. To understand Wyatt and Surrey (not to mention Shakespeare), it helps to know Petrarch. You get more out of Pope if you have read Boileau and more out of Coleridge, Carlyle and George Eliot if you know German. English 10 will teach you that. If literary influences were what Harvard wanted to stress, there would be no reason to scrap its current approach. 'Arrivals' appears to be a pretext for teaching more about migration, building a bridge to the doctrines of post-colonial and cultural studies in which the many professors are heavily invested. The description of 'Diffusions' reveals similar preoccupations: 'What is this nation, ecosystem, town, region, community, continent? What does it mean to belong to a where, and what are the signs, and forms, and idioms, of belonging – and unbelonging.' Again, there is not much to disagree with in those sentences, even if there is plenty to edit and punctuate.

The goal is to take the most superficial, unliterary and easily politicised aspects of the study of English and pretend they are the throbbing heart of the whole enterprise. This makes things easier for both students and professors. It fits English literature into categories of thought that the prospective US English major already possesses before he has ever opened a novel or read a poem. All such a reader will find in Chaucer and Dickens are stodgy versions of our own political dramas over immigration and minorities, identities and rights."

What Caldwell doesn't say is that this is being done at many, if not most universities, already, and probably, to some degree, Harvard. But that doesn't make the (further) politicization any less lamentable.
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:44 AM

 
Worse than corruption

While everyone who follows these things in America and abroad now knows about Rod Blagojevich's alleged shakedown and corruption racket, few people know of what else the Illinois governor is doing that is much, much worse. Joe Queenan explains in the Washington Post:

"What's far more worrisome is Blagojevich's bizarre confrontation with the Bank of America. The day before he was arrested on charges of massive corruption, Blagojevich visited a group of striking workers at a North Chicago firm called Republic Windows & Doors. After being laid off the week before, the employees had begun a sit-in, demanding benefits they were still owed by their employer, which said it could not meet their demands because the Bank of America had cut off its financing. At this point, Blagojevich informed bank officials that unless they restored the shuttered window-and-door company's line of credit, the state of Illinois would suspend all further business with Bank of America. A few days later, the bank caved in and ponied up a $1.35 million loan.

The idea that the governor of a state as prosperous and important and sophisticated and upscale as Illinois would make this kind of threat is terrifying. Even more terrifying is that Bank of America saw no alternative but to give in. Yet even more terrifying is that nobody outside Chicago seems to have gotten terribly worked up about the situation, riveted as they are on the governor's more theatrical transgressions. But peddling a Senate seat or using scare tactics to shake down a newspaper are nowhere near so serious a menace to society as letting the government arbitrarily intervene in financial transactions between banks and creditors. A crooked governor we can all handle. But a governor who capriciously decides which commercial enterprises a bank must finance and which it can ignore is a scary proposition indeed."

Yet, this kind of shakedown has much larger, and harmful, ramifications. The problem is that it is a matter of course, the normal operating procedure of governments -- governors, bureaucrats, cabinet members, senators, etc... -- nearly everywhere. It sounds like mafia extortion.

Queenan explains why this is a problem:

"The bailout hysteria gripping the United States has spawned the dangerous idea that politicians, as the taxpayers' elected representatives, should be allowed to pick winners and losers when jobs are being cut or windows being shuttered -- because taxpayers now have skin in the game. The pols don't even have to look at the books to see whether the enterprises are still commercially viable: The banks do business with the public, the public hates unemployment, the banks have a moral responsibility to shore up fatally wounded businesses, and that's the end of it.

The problem here is that the public also owns stock in banks such as Citigroup and Bank of America, and the public doesn't want the banks they have invested in to make any more bad loans. So when a politician steps in and says that a bank must restore financing to a dying company, he is rewarding one set of taxpayers and punishing another.

That pol may even be rewarding one set of taxpayers while simultaneously punishing them, because the guys who go on strike may have 401(k)s containing mutual funds that own tons of stock in Bank of America."
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:16 AM

 
The Ford contract































It's 2215 pages. You can read it, and other UAW contracts, here.

(HT: Marginal Revolution)
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:12 AM

 
Any given Sunday










Buffalo Bills at New York Jets: The Bills have scored precisely three points in both their last two games. Lately, both QBs, Trent Edwards and J.P. Losman, have been awful despite a moderately effective O-line protecting them. Whether they hold up against the blitzing Jets defense might mean the difference of the Jets merely beating the Bills or annihilating them. Just because the Jets have lost two in a row is no reason to think they have entirely fell apart. Buffalo is a weak opponent and New York should have no trouble covering the seven points.

Detroit Lions at Indianapolis Colts: The Colts have won six in a row; the Lions have lost 13 in a row. It isn't just that the Lions lose; they lose badly. Six times they have been beaten by 18 or more. Still, 17 points is a lot to cover. I'll take the Colts but common sense says don't bet on them to beat the Lions by two scores and additional field goal.

Green Bay Packers at Jacksonville Jaguars: Both teams are having disappointing seasons, but the Packers have been in the games that they have lost (despite being 5-8, they have scored 36 more points than they have surrendered). Aaron Rogers usually plays well enough to win, it is only a matter of whether the defense does its job. Jax has looked absolutely horrible at times and they look worse every week. The O-line is porous, QB Jake Delhomme has no receiving targets and coach Jack Del Rio has looked uninterested the past two weeks and there are rumours he has lost control of his team. Green Bay wins and covers the 1.5 points.

San Diego Chargers at Kansas City Chiefs: The Chargers are a lot like the Packers in that their record is deceptive (5-8, 43 more points scored than surrendered, third most points scored in the AFC) and by several measures Philip Rivers is one the best QBs in the NFL. The Chiefs are more of a challenge now that rookie QB Tyler Thigpen has the job and spreading the offense around. But I've believed in the Bolts are year and I think they are good enough to cover the five points.

San Francisco 49ers at Miami Dolphins: The Niners have won two in a row, and both of them were against the Fins' division rivals. Under coach Mike Singletary, San Fran is playing much better football. Dolphins have been tough to beat this year and they haven't allowed a TD in either of their past two games. Niners have an uphill battle with RB Frank Gore nursing an injured ankle. I like the Dolphins to win but not cover the TD spread.

Seattle Seahawks at St. Louis Rams: Yuck, a pair of 2-11 teams and one of them (the 'Hawks) are using their backup QB (Seneca Wallace). Seattle has lost six in a row, the Rams have dropped seven straight. The difference is that the 'Hawks have sometimes played competitive football, like in their 24-21 home defeat at the hands of the Patriots last week. But they should be able to exploit the Rams' pass defense, the worst in the NFL. Hawks win and cover the three point spread.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers at Atlanta Falcons: Tampa's dominant defense didn't look so strong in the fourth quarter against the Carolina Panthers in Monday Night's game. Falcons are in a grove with rookie QB Matt Ryan playing well (24/33, 315 yards, 1 TD in a losing cause last week). But the Falcons, who are 5-1 at home this season, get the edge with Tampa QB Jeff Garcia likely out with an injury. That and TB's run defense looked creaky last week; after allowing just one running TD in it first 12 games, they allowed four by Carolina last week. Watch for RB Michael Turner to have watched and learned how to get through Tampa's defenses. Atlanta wins but doesn't beat the three-point spread.

Tennessee Titans at Houston Texans: The Titans running game has returned in the last two weeks, with RBs Chris Johnson and LenDale White combining for 466 yards (and 2 TDs) and they will overmatch Houston's rush defense. According to Pro Football Weekly, the Texans now have the third-ranked offense in the NFL. QB Matt Schaub looked impressive in his return last week against Green Bay, there is a solid if unexceptional receiving corps and an emerging running threat in RB Steve Slaton. The Texans have won three straight and it is too much to expect them to run that up to four. Titans win and shouldn't have any problem covering the three points.

Washington Redskins at Cincinnati Bengals: The Skins have looked worse than mediocre in the past month and there is no better way for a team to get their ship sailing back in the right direction than facing Cincy (well, other than taking on the Detroit Lions). The only question mark is whether the verbal dust up between star RB Clinton Portis and coach Jim Zorn becomes too much of a distraction. I betting not (these are professionals, after all). Skins win but don't cover the seven points; they have not broke 20 points since mid-October.

Minnesota Vikings at Arizona Cardinals: I would have predicted a good, close, back-and-forth game, but QB Gus Ferrote is out and Minny is going with opening day starting QB Tavaris Jackson. The last time he started, the Vikes were 0-2. Cards' Kurt Warner-powered aerial offense wins and covers the three point spread easily. Easily.

Denver Broncos at Carolina Panthers: The Panthers have a solid defense and great running game going. The Broncos win with a great arm (QB Jay Cutler), good receivers (too many to mention), a weak running game (although rookie RB Peyton Hills was doing fine the last few weeks but he is now out with an until injury) and zero defense. I mean zero. It makes games interesting, although the Broncs have won enough that they will clinch Sunday with a win or a tie or a Chargers loss. Who would have guessed? They'll need the Chargers to blow it because the Panthers, a perfect 7-0 at home this year, win but can't cover the 7.5 points.

New England Patriots at Oakland Raiders: Injuries are mounting for the Pats, they are in the second week of a West coast road trip and Matt Cassel missed practise this week because his father died. Players deny it, but these types of things distract players. Still, the Raiders are the Raiders. Pats win but don't beat the seven points.

Pittsburgh Steelers at Baltimore Ravens: Pittsburgh clinches the NFC North with a win in Baltimore. Problem is, the Steelers have lost five in a row there. This is a battle of superbly strong defenses (Pittsburgh and Baltimore are 1-2 in yards allowed). Ravens are exceptional against the run. The Steelers running game has been suspect lately, so watch for Ben Roethlisberger to look for a lot of short and medium passes to get the offense going. While the Steelers O-line has been strong, Roethlisberger gets himself into trouble waiting too long to pass the ball, resulting in sacks galore. Ravens will pressure Big Ben on the pass rush; the last time Big Ben played in Baltimore (in November 2006), the Ravens sacked him nine times and he threw a pair of picks. I'd love to say the Steelers, but the Ravens have everything going for them lately and they should be tough to beat at home. Ravens win and cover the two points -- but only barely.

New York Giants at Dallas Cowboys: A lot of injuries to both sides, but Dallas needs the win. The hungrier team often wins, so I'll go with the Cowboys. Tony Romo will find Terrel Owens and Jason Witten enough to spread the G-Men's defense. The three-point spread favouring Dallas sounds right.

Cleveland Browns at Philadelphia Eagles: The Browns are on their third-string QB. Philly's blitzing defense should eat him up. The Eagles have turned a corner since Donavan McNabb's benching. Eagles win and cover the 14 point spread.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:02 PM

 
Is a fake teacher's certificate a placebo to fix America's ailing education system



























From the Wall Street Journal:

"Like all unions, teachers unions have a vested interest in restricting the labor supply to reduce job competition. Traditional state certification rules help to limit the supply of 'certified' teachers. But a new study suggests that such requirements also hinder student learning.

Harvard researchers Paul Peterson and Daniel Nadler compared states that have genuine alternative certification with those that have it in name only. And they found that between 2003 and 2007 students in states with a real alternative pathway to teaching gained more on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (a federal standardized test) than did students in other states."

Requiring the taking of specialized education courses are a disincentive to qualified potential teachers from becoming actual teachers and does nothing to help those who do become educators. As the Journal notes, "That outcome may serve the goals of labor unions, but it's hard to see how it helps the kids." Relaxing certification requirements would be an inexpensive way for states to achieve better performance from students (and teachers) in schools.
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:32 PM

 
Playboy louse

The Daily Telegraph reports:

"Playboy magazine was forced to issue an apology after it put a nude model resembling the Virgin Mary on the cover of the Mexican edition of the publication only days before a major festival dedicated to the mother of Jesus."

Days before thousands of Mexicans go to the shrine of the Virgin of Guadalupe, the porn-peddlers at Playboy featured a cover on its Mexican edition of a model standing in front of a stained glass window wearing nothing but a white cloth over her head and breasts and the cover line (in Spanish): "We Love You, Maria." Playboy Enterprises Inc. released a statement saying: "While Playboy Mexico never meant for the cover or images to offend anyone, we recognise that it has created offence, and we as well as Playboy Mexico offer our sincerest apologies." And the publisher of Playboy Mexico said: "The image is not and never was intended to portray the Virgin of Guadalupe or any other religious figure. The intent was to reflect a Renaissance-like mood on the cover." Yeah, right.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:14 PM

 
Moderate Islam

Kathy Shaidle interviewed Stealth Jihad author Robert Spencer. An excerpt from Five Feet of Fury:

"KS: Is 'moderate' Islam even possible?

RS: Anything is possible. But 'moderate' Islam as an Islamic theological and legal construct does not now exist, and would need to be invented. Can it be done? The record of history shows that it is never wise to say that something could never happen. But as it would involve the overturning or wholesale reevaluation of the fonts of Islamic authority that have existed since virtually the beginning of Islam, it is extremely unlikely."
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:07 PM

 
Stimulating/bailing out the states

The New York Times asks a bunch of economists what they would do to stimulate the economy. Joseph Stiglitz demonstrates his liberal bona fides in supporting a bailout for the states that irresponsibly ratcheted up spending during the growth years and face multi-billion dollar shortfalls today, as well as more unemployment insurance, spending on green R&D, "a successor to TARP" and cutting back on military spending. Tyler Cowen supports bailing out the states, too, which surprised me:

"I would try to ensure that state and local governments do not cut funding which they will later restore ... It’s not that I think state and local governments are always so efficient and wise, but rather this is a very simple and direct way to prevent the economy from being hit by yet another sectoral shock when it is already reeling."

As Cowen observes, bailing out the states would also prevent pouring money into even more 'dubious' stimulus programs. Cowen adds: "If there is money left over I would spend it on cutting the Social Security payroll tax for specified groups of lower- to middle-income workers, thus encouraging the resumption of hiring." Isn't this among the best things you could do? So why wait until the states are bailed out, when there would be less money and the payroll tax cuts would be smaller and therefore less impactful?
posted by Paul Tuns at 7:45 AM

 
Out on downs

4. If the Miami Dolphins win two of their final three games, they'll finish 10-6. The Fins will have 10 times more wins than they did last season (1-15) and would be the only team in NFL history to accomplish that feat. Quite something that they are even 500.

3. On Sunday, a pair of 2-11 teams play each other: the Seattle Seahawks are in St. Louis Rams. Consolation prize: probably staying out of the cellar of the NFC West.

2. The Arizona Cardinals play host to the Minnesota Vikings on Sunday and will get the chance to take a close look RB Adrian Peterson. In the 2007 NFL draft, the Cards passed on Peterson, who was the runner up for the Heisman Trophy as a freshman at University of Oklahoma, instead taking offensive tackle Levi Brown out of Penn State. Brown was picked fifth overall, Peterson seventh. Considering how one dimensional the Cards offense is, entirely reliant on the aerial attack, they must regret their decision to take Brown over Peterson.

1. Reid Cherner at USA Today says that the Cards-Vikes match "might be the best game of the week." In a weekend where the two best defensive teams, the 10-3 Pittsburgh Steelers visit 9-3 division rival Baltimore Ravens, face one another and NFC East rivals New York Giants and Dallas Cowboys play in a Sunday night match in a must-win situation for the home team, I simply do not understand how anyone thinks the Cards-Vikings game is the best one on the schedule.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:02 PM

 
Three and out

3. Incredible stat I found in the Chicago Tribune: Canadian-born Ferguson Jenkins lost 13 complete games by a score of 1-0. That's gotta hurt.

2. Yankees have apparently signed A.J. Burnett to a five-year, $82.5 million deal. I don't like this free agent signing so much because until this year, Burnett seldom stayed healthy nor even had a career 500 record. Cliff Corcoran at Bronx Banter says "A.J. Stands for Awful Judgment." On the plus side, as one commenter notes, Burnett kicks butt in American League East stadia. When Burnett is healthy, he can be among the best in the sport. Until 2008, he wasn't healthy often enough to justify a $16-million per year contract for five years.

1. The Los Angeles Times reports that the Baltimore Orioles and Washington Nationals have "blow away" former Angels 1B Mark Teixeira with their offers (probably quite a bit north of $20 million a year for seven or eight years) because they are not really in the playoff picture whereas the Angels and Boston Red Sox (two other interested parties) are perennial contenders. I'm not sure what I would do: a million or two over seven or eight years is significant, but athletes play to win championships. Yet, there is no guarantee that the BoSox or Angels will be making the playoffs in 2014 -- or that the Orioles or Nationals will be perennial losers. There are also rumours that the New York Yankees are interested in signing Teixeira.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:45 PM

 
Cardinal Dulles, RIP













Cardinal Avery Dulles has died at the age of 90. The AP reports:

"Pope John Paul II appointed Dulles in 2001 to the College of Cardinals, making him the first American Jesuit and the first U.S. theologian outside of a diocese to be named a cardinal. He was considered the dean of American Catholic theologians."

Cardinal Dulles was a son of the establishment -- his grandfather was a Presbyterian minister, his father was John Foster Dulles, a Secretary of State (Dwight Eisenhower's), as was his great-grandfather John W. Foster (Benjamin Harrison) and great uncle Robert Lansing (Woodrow Wilson), and his uncle Allen Dulles was a director of the CIA (Eisenhower). John Foster Dulles, who Avery Dulles said was shocked to hear of the son's conversion to Catholicism, said that having a priest as a son gave him credence with politicians from Catholic countries such as Italy and France and a greater bond with German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer (who also had a son who was a priest).

Fr. Dulles was a famous lecturer and prolific author -- more than 700 articles and 22 books. Most laymen would be most familiar with his essays in First Things and that journal's editor, Joseph Bottum, has a list (and links) to many of them, including the best and fairest article on Catholicism and capital punishment I've ever read; it is a typical example of his modus operandi to seek "out the best arguments in favor of each major position ... to give an informed judgment as to which positions are sound and which should be rejected." (From his farewell speech at Fordham in April 2008.) Cardinal Dulles agrees with Pope John Paul II's opposition to the death penalty but recognizes the validity of arguments on both sides of the issue, from a Catholic perspective. Another essay from FT worth reading is his 1995 reflection on genuine freedom ("I have tried thus far to establish that freedom is meaningless and self-destructive if it is not used in the service of what is truly good").

The poet and priest, Gerard Manley Hopkins, who died 29 years before Avery Dulles was born, wrote: (1844-89): "Time has three dimensions and one positive pitch or direction. It is therefore not so much like any river or any sea as like the Sea of Galilee, which has the Jordan running through it and giving a current to the whole." Dulles was incorrigibly hopeful because of that fact, saying, contra Keynes, "The long run, includes the eschaton."
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:20 PM

 
Kling on Keynesianism

Arnold Kling:

"The fact that our economy is post-industrial, and traditional Keynesian economics does not take that into account. I still cannot picture unemployed investment bankers joining road-repair crews."
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:12 AM

 
What I'm reading

1. The Great Canadian Comedy: From Laughter to Tears by Joe Campbell. This is a funny collection of short essays that have appeared previously in more than a dozen publications from Gilbert to the Globe and Mail, Marriage Magazine to Stitches. Here's my blurb from the back of the book: "Joe Campbell's playfulness with words is delightful as he he re-introduces the reader to common sense by twisting words back to something recognizable after they have been rendered meaningless pretzels by the forces of political correctness."

2. "The Crisis in the Caucasus," by Charles King and "Washington's Choice" by Stephen Sestanovich in the November/December Foreign Affairs.

3. The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide by Robert Jay Lifton. I know a lot of people who couldn't finish this 2000 book -- it's pretty disgusting -- but I am perusing it for the second time to glean some information for an article I hope to write about Yad Vashem in The Interim, tying the euthanasia program in Nazi Germany to the Final Solution -- a connection that the Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem makes.

4. "Why Do Men Buy Sex?" December 2008, Scientific American

5. "Canadian Provincial Investment Climate: 2008 Report," by the Fraser Institute's Niels Veldhuis, Milagros Palacios and Keith Godin.
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:07 AM

 
A cheesy way to use government money










The Wall Street Journal reports that the Italian government is bailing out Parmigiano Reggiano, a cheese company, by purchasing 100,000 wheels of cheese and donating them to charity.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:43 AM

 
Turning America into Obamanation

Charles Krauthammer writes insightfully about the intentions of Barack Obama and how he intends to be a transformational president:

"Obama the centrist? I'm not so sure. Take the foreign policy team: Hillary Clinton, James Jones and Bush holdover Robert Gates. As centrist as you can get. But the choice was far less ideological than practical. Obama has no intention of being a foreign policy president. Unlike, say, Nixon or Reagan, he does not have aspirations abroad. He simply wants quiet on his eastern and western fronts so that he can proceed with what he really cares about -- his domestic agenda.

Similarly his senior economic team, the brilliant trio of Tim Geithner, Larry Summers and Paul Volcker: centrist, experienced and mainstream. But their principal task is to stabilize the financial system, a highly pragmatic task in which Obama has no particular ideological stake.

A functioning financial system is a necessary condition for a successful Obama presidency. As in foreign policy, Obama wants experts and veterans to manage and pacify universes in which he has little experience and less personal commitment. Their job is to keep credit flowing and the world at bay so that Obama can address his real ambition: to effect a domestic transformation as grand and ambitious as Franklin Roosevelt's.

As Obama revealingly said just last week, "This painful crisis also provides us with an opportunity to transform our economy to improve the lives of ordinary people." Transformation is his mission. Crisis provides the opportunity. The election provides him the power...

With the country clamoring for action and with all psychological barriers to government intervention obliterated (by the conservative party, no less), the stage is set for a young, ambitious, supremely confident president -- who sees himself as a world-historical figure before even having been sworn in -- to begin a restructuring of the American economy and the forging of a new relationship between government and people.

Don't be fooled by Bob Gates staying on. Obama didn't get elected to manage Afghanistan. He intends to transform America. And he has the money, the mandate and the moxie to go for it."

As evidenced by the ideas in a symposium in the current Democracy Journal (free registration), the center-left has an agenda for Obama to follow in transforming the United States. He has no doubt already thought about the changes he wants to usher in.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:33 AM

 
Someone inserted a backbone into Senate Republicans

From the New York Times:

"The Senate on Thursday night abandoned efforts to fashion a government rescue of the American automobile industry, as Senate Republicans refused to support a bill endorsed by the White House and Congressional Democrats."

This doesn't necessarily mean the big dinosaurs, er, car companies will die off. Bankruptcy can work as it is designed to and allow a desperately needed restructuring for the companies and allow the free market to work it magic.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:21 AM

 
Comments

Send them to paul_tuns[AT]yahoo.com.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:15 AM

 
Three and out

3. I'm with Cliff Corcoran of Bronx Banter on the C.C. Sabathia signing: a lot of upside, so its probably worth the cost. Read his full post on why this is so; I'm in full agreement.

2. Worst baseball commentary ever: former MLB pitcher Jim Kaat complains about Hall of Fame voting and he is evidently bitter that the veteran's committee didn't induct him into Cooperstown. Ostensibly the column is about Ron Santos being denied entry, but it is really just him grumbling. His complaint, that the Hall of Fame is just about numbers is true but he provides an awful example to make his case:

"I'll give you my example of numbers being deceiving and not always giving a true picture of a player's value to his team.

Alex Rodriguez has already had a Hall of Fame career. He already has 553 home runs, 1,606 RBIs, and a .306 batting average. Scott Brosius batted .257 in his career with 141 home runs, and 531 RBIs. The Yankees have not won a World Series with Alex Rodriguez at third base. They won three with Scott Brosius.

My point in covering the Yankees as a TV analyst during the years of both of them, and this not being disrespectful of Alex's accomplishments, is that Brosius did more to help the Yankees win games than Alex has done. Wow! What a preposterous statement! It's the little things that players do to help their team win games, advance runners, a timely single or sacrifice fly late in the game, and a key defensive play. Scott did that. Alex hasn't as often.

Scott won't be inducted into the Hall, Alex will, and because of the numbers and not their value to their team."

Is Jim Kaat really saying Scott Brosius should be in the Hall of Fame and Alex Rodriguez shouldn't? That's nuts. This Kaat's Corner is so bad, it should disqualify Kaat from the Hall of Fame forever.

1. And nearly the worst baseball commentary ever: Paul Daugherty's piece in the USA Today about Major League Baseball being out of touch with America in economic times such as these. Somehow a $161 million contract for a superstar pitcher is inappropriate when, "Here in the real world, we watch our futures constrict ... Just about everything we've worked for wobbles like a three-legged chair, and more of us will face the fright of running out of money before running out of month." How one is related to another is another explained, other than it MLB is "disconnected" and that "the national pastime has never been less representative of the nation." A silly, sarcastic column from a guy who probably never thinks athlete salaries are justified and he is thus exploiting economic turmoil to advance his envious agenda.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:37 PM

 
Out on downs

4. I have often wondered what motivates a team that is far out of playoff contention to give everything its got at this time of year and I have come to the conclusion that athletes want to play at their highest level and win, if not the division then every game. It's about pride. This year, the Detroit Lions might play extra hard in the final three games to avoid becoming the first team to go winless in a 16-game season. But what about the 2-11 Seattle Seahawks or 6-7 Houston Texans. Ross Tucker writes at SI.com that for some players there is another motivation: "those teams playing for a cause -- more often than not, their head coach's job." He cites as two specific examples, San Fran 49ers players wanting Mike Singletary back and the Houston Texans playing to help Gary Kubiak return in '09 after starting '08 0-4. Sounds plausible. There is also probably something to wanting to end on a high note: better to win the final two games and appear to have turned things around than go into training camp next year blowing five of six.

3. So the Cardinals are hosting their first playoff game since 1947. That is, they haven't played at home in the playoffs since they were still Chicago Cardinals. (Which was one game -- the championship game -- back then.) They have since moved to St. Louis and Phoenix. Of course, the Phoenix suburbs hosted the Super Bowl last year, when the New York Giants beat the New England Patriots.

2. If I were forced to put money down, I'd bet on the Indianapolis Colts representing the AFC in the Super Bowl. I am hesitant, however, to make that prediction because I'm not sure that Peyton Manning can win outdoors in winter and there is a really good chance Indy will have to play at least one game outdoors in New Jersey (the New York Jets), Pittsburgh or Baltimore, if not two. I also like the Ravens as a team that can go far because of their dominant defense and emerging offense. I'd love to see the Steelers, but I don't think they have the offense to win two or three games against three playoff-calibre teams.

1. For the NFC, I want to wait a week and see how the New York Giants deal with the distractions (Plaxico Burress) they say they don't have. But its either them or the Carolina Panthers. The Philadelphia Eagles could make it by leap-frogging Dallas and an NFC South team, but that is asking a lot. If they do make it to the post-season, however, they will be a strong contender. That is a big if, though.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:29 PM

 
Mitch McConnell on the bailout

The whole speech is at The Corner, but consider this:

"There are many principled reasons to oppose this bill. But the simplest one is also the best: ‘a government big enough to give us everything we want is a government big enough to take everything we have.’ This is as true for individuals as it is for business. It’s the primary principle on which American industry, including the auto industry, was built. And even in turbulent moments like this — perhaps especially at moments like this — it’s a principle well worth defending...

In addition protecting the taxpayer, this is a goal that Republicans have been fighting hard for in this debate. And in my view, it’s a goal that is well worth our efforts."

Nice to hear Republicans talk like this -- and mean it. Fight on, Senator McConnell.
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:42 PM

 
Breaking news: excellent advice from an advice columnist

Normally the advice from the self-appointed peddlers of help isn't worth the paper it is written on (or the electronic equivalent of 0.2-cents per sheet), although for some reason I regularly read Emily Yoffe's Dear Prudence column at Slate. Today a pregnant mom writes to ask about how her cross-dressing husband and her should "incorporate this facet of our life with a new child" or betray the child with dishonesty or the burden of keeping a secret. I was pleasantly surprised by Yoffe's answer:

"I know that when you're expecting, you feel a need to get everything perfect for your new addition, but you're getting way ahead of yourself if you think you should dress a teddy bear in a peignoir so you can start explaining to the baby that, just like Teddy, Daddy likes to wear pretty ladies' clothes. Let's say you two were into bondage and had a closetful of whips and chains. I would advise you to keep the closet secured and get a heavy-duty lock for the bedroom door, rather than try to 'incorporate this facet' of your life with your child by teaching your toddler how to snap Daddy into handcuffs for Mommy. If your husband lounges around at home every night in a bustier, palazzo pants, and a wig, then I'm voting for repression. It's time for your husband to limit his dressing up to times when he's not with the baby. As your child gets older and mobile, your husband will have to take more steps to separate his fetish from your family life. Perhaps he will need to check into a motel occasionally when he just can't stifle the need to dress up as Madonna. Your husband has to live with this compulsion, but surely you both want to do your best to keep your child from growing up amid such sexual confusion. You feel this aspect of your private lives is none of your family's business, or your husband's colleagues', and that is an excellent attitude to maintain with your child."
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:57 AM

 
Conservatism: principles and winning

Quin Hillyer at The American Spectator Online:

"The usual suspects pushing for conservatives to drop essential and longstanding tenets of conservatism are asking conservatives to stop being conservatives. That's like asking Catholics to stop being Catholics, or like demanding that Red Sox fans start wearing Orioles uniforms.

Forget it.

Wait. What's that? Oh, I see…. The usual suspects protest that they have our best interests at heart. They say their advice is for our own good, because if we want to win in this brave new political world, we'll need to adjust. Adjust our thinking. Adjust our beliefs. Adjust our values.

No way.

If this were a football game, it would be all about winning. But this isn't a game. It's our country. We care about politics not because we care first about winning, but because we believe in certain principles. Of course we want the principles to be implemented -- yes, we want them to win -- but it's the winning that must be in service of the principles, not vice versa."

Conservatives everywhere should read and ponder that last paragraph. If they don't agree, they are party men first and conservatives second.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:36 AM

 
Evolution can challenge the Left, too

Here is David Friedman:

"I have been engaged in a long Usenet thread (much of it here) coming out of my claim that hostility to evolution isn't limited to the religious right, that the left, although unwilling to reject the theory of evolution, is also unwilling to accept implications of evolutionary biology that are politically incorrect."

He uses that observation as a jumping off point about the roles of nature and nurture, wondering if the reason that the offspring of educated and rich parents end up being wealthier and better educated than children from poor households with less educated parents. As Friedman asks, "Is that because of a superior environment or superior genes?" The knee-jerk reaction on the Left is usually that people are poor because they are the product of a bad environment (poverty, crime-ridden, etc...) and so they propose government assistance for those in the underclass to better themselves. That is, the Left views massive amounts of welfare, health and education spending not as a handout but a hand up. What their analysis ignores is the possible role of genes -- and as Friedman implicates, this is at odds with their professed belief in evolution. The Left often alleges that many of the Right are hypocrites for supporting a social Darwinism in the economic sphere while rejecting evolution as an explanation for the beginning of mankind. Few are willing to note the apparent hypocrisy on Left for doing the reverse.

Of course, definitively answering whether nature or nurture plays the larger role in shaping who we are might be akin to answering what came first, the chicken or the egg. But the answer has enormous policy implications and our inability to answer the question could means we are wasting billions and billions of dollars. Or perhaps the fact that the billions and billions hasn't solved the problem answers the question in itself.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:11 AM

 
Why there is a bailout for automakers























Because lobbyists and special interests 'bailout' politicians. As David Harsanyi reports in his Denver Post column:

"[T]he auto industry spent nearly $50 million lobbying Congress in the first nine months of this year while unions spent hundreds of millions to put Democrats in Washington."

I repeat: if you want to limit the influence of money in politics, reduce the state's influence in the economy. That -- and only reducing government spending -- will reduce the incentives of special interests to seek favour with politicians.

In (potentially) related news, Mark Milke finds in his Fraser Institute report on corporate welfare, that between 1994 and 2006, Canadian governments doled out $182 billion to private companies in the form of subsidies, including $19.3 billion in 1996 ($1,291 per taxpayer).
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:32 AM

 
Neat blog

Daily routines of famous people, mostly writers. Having read about his home and routine, I like the historian Jacques Barzun even more. I also like the novelist Thomas Berger's comments about writing (quoted in the New York Times): "Writing is a very intense experience for me, but the strain is too great to maintain for long. Interestingly enough, this is true only when the novel is going well, is for me truly an alternative to life. When I have no conviction I can write all day!"
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:27 AM

 
Another thing on Blago
Or, some thoughts on corruption

Thinking about Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's alleged corruption, I was struck by something: a half-mil for a Senate seat. That's it? As Jonah Goldberg notes:

"A New York City cab medallion can fetch $600,000. A Senate seat is worth a lot more than that. Perhaps Blago should be congratulated for his willingness to take a bath on the fair market value of a Senate seat?"

The average person looks at $500,000 and thinks, wow, that's a lot of money. But it isn't, and certainly not when one considers what the Senate seat could be worth, in terms of salary, pension and potential lobbying income when a political career ends. Andrew Roth at the Club for Growth blog estimates that the value to a 42-year-old elected to the Senate (with certain assumptions about tenure, lobbyist pay and age of death) is over $6 million. Not a bad trade-off -- a twelve to one return on investment over 42 years.

Also, I look at government spending -- that is, lavishing taxpayer dollars on favoured groups and individuals -- and wonder why there isn't more 'corruption'. All that government money to be redistributed is quite the incentive for lobbyists to curry the favour of elected officials. No wonder that the federal Department of Justice reports it arrests about 1,000 state and local government officials across the country each year in election crimes (patronage, election campaigns, fraud, bribery, etc...).
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:15 AM

 
Cowen on time management/preferences

Tyler Cowen says: "All people are equally good at time management, but some people are more willing than others to admit that they are doing what they want to do, while others maintain the illusion they wish they were doing something else."

I couldn't agree more and I have this argument all the time with people, that they are doing such and such because while they may not like it, they like it better than the alternatives. The other person says that they don't like what they are doing more but rather that they have no choice. Humbug. You might not enjoy work but you prefer the drabness of a desk job (or shoveling shit or putting up with a horrible boss) to not working. Or you dislike getting up early to take a son to hockey practise but you prefer inculcating an interest in the sport in the boy to the extra 30 minutes sleep you'd otherwise have or having one's child interested in something else which you might not approve. Or you might prefer a Lexus over a Honda but you are not willing to do what it takes to get a Lexus. You might not enjoy taking the kids to the park but you'd rather avoid the nagging from the wife that comes with ignoring the children. (None of these are personal examples.)

In one of Cowen's books, the author says that the best way to enjoy movies is to leave bad ones (and even good ones) if there is something else you would prefer to do. An economist might argue that people who sit through bad movies do not understand the concept of sunk costs ("I spent $15 on the movie so I'm going to watch it"), but perhaps unhappy movie-goers value the feeling of not wasting that $15 to anything else they might do after leaving the theatre disappointed.

The point is people like to complain and if they didn't like doing something -- or if they didn't dislike what they are doing less than the alternatives -- they wouldn't do it.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:09 AM

 
Any given Thursday










New Orleans Saints at Chicago Bears: A pair of 7-6 teams that are both long-shots to make the playoffs, the loser gets eliminated and the winner keeps the flame of hope alive. QB Drew Brees is facing the Bears' 28th-ranked pass defense, so the Saints aerial game could be on display, unless the December weather in Chicago makes that impossible. If the Bears drop back to increase pass coverage, they'll open up lanes for RBs Reggie Bush and Pierre Thomas. Yet, even though the Bears secondary has been lackluster this year, they have 19 interceptions, so they can keep the game close by picking off Brees mistakes. The Saints have lost all four games in which Brees has thrown multiple picks. The slow-footed Saints D-line will have trouble containing rookie RB Matt Forte. This has the potential to be a great match-up, but for the Bears to stay in the game, QB Kyle Orton needs to have a game more like the one he had last week against Jacksonville (20/34 for 219 yards and 2 TDs) than his three previous games in which he completed less than half of his pass attempts. The Saints pull off the upset in Chicago, who are favoured by three.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:04 AM

 
Three and out

3. The Washington Nationals demonstrate their ineptitude in apparently offering former LA Angels 1B Mark Teixeira a seven-year, $150 million offer. They are at least two seasons away from competing in the National League East, so why spend so much now?

2. I love the New York Mets signing of reliever Francisco Rodriguez at 3 years for $37 million. K-Rod is a very good, though not a shut-down closer. But the Mets got the best closer on the free agent or trade market for a decent price and he is only 27-years-old. In other words, they aren't going to be saddled with a large contract for a declining pitcher in his 30s. Brilliant, brilliant signing because it is a low-risk move. There is reportedly a $14 million vesting option for the fourth year, which I'm not crazy about (depending on the terms in which the fourth year kicks in) but it is better than the five-year, $75 million guaranteed contract K-Rod was looking for.

1. As a New York Yankees fan, I love the talk about the Boston Red Sox signing free agent reliever John Smoltz. The right-hander has been playing in an Atlanta Braves uniform for every one of his 20-year Major League career and one day that uniform is going to be on display in Cooperstown. But at 42 he is a big risk for a contending team today. A rotation that includes Josh Beckett, Diasuke Matsuzaka, Jon Lester and Smoltz (regardless of who the fifth starter is) could be impressive, but Smoltz is 42 and coming off June shoulder surgery. Forty-two! Great addition if it were 1998, but you'd think they would have learned from re-signing Curt Schilling last winter and losing him before Opening Day with a season-ending shoulder injury. All that said, I'd be shocked if he leaves Atlanta, even if it means he leaves some money on the table to give the Braves a discount.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:38 PM

 
Out on downs

Here is a new feature -- four quick thoughts on football. Hope to make it daily. Another new feature, three and out, will do the same for baseball.

4. Last weekend, U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson blocked the NFL's suspension of five players who violated the league's drug policies (by using a banned diuretic). Without getting into all the technicalities (the NFL didn't name the drug on their list of banned drugs but the league also says players are responsible for everything they put into their bodies) or whether the policy is just or makes sense, this is clearly a matter for the NFL to decide and not the courts. It is judicial imperialism for a judge to say that the league's policies, agreed to by the NFLPA, the player's union, cannot be enforced.

3. For all the talk about the Arizona Cardinal's lackluster defense, it was their play on that side of the ball that won them the game on Sunday: three second-half takeaways (two for 2 TDs) and their terrible run defense shut down St. Louis Rams RB Steven Jackson (68 yards). Might be turning a corner and they shouldn't be so easily dismissed as an early playoff exit in January.

2. Drew Brees is having one of the best passing seasons ever -- he could break Dan Marino's record for the most passing yards -- and he is falling out of MVP contention because the Saints could finish last in the NFC South. Part of this has to do with the endless discussion of what an MVP is (best player or the player who made the biggest difference for a playoff-bound team?). I think you must have a dominating season to get the MVP if you are not on a team that plays in January. But neither is it clear that Brees is the best QB in the NFL. Is Brees that much better than Kurt Warner (4,100 yards for Brees, 4020 for Warner)?

1. The Pittsburgh Steelers can clinch the AFC North title with a win against the Ravens in Baltimore. But the Ravens have won five straight at home against the Steelers, including two (2003 and 2005) in overtime by a field goal.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:22 PM

 
The Natural Governing Party

I think Canadians in general and Conservatives in particular make too much of the Grits being undemocratic, because the problem is something worse: arrogance. Lorne Gunter writes about this in his National Post column today:

"[T]he Liberals have never quite given up on the notion they are Canada’s Divine Right to Govern party.

Most parties with just half as many votes as a government wouldn’t dream of trying to unseat it. Nor would they consider attempting to form government less than two months after receiving the lowest vote share in their history, without first going through another general election.

But most parties aren’t, in their own delusional estimation, 'the greatest democratic institution in the Western world'."

It is the Liberals' view of themselves as the Natural Governing Party -- elevated by Gunter to the Divine Right to Govern Party -- and not their supposedly undemocratic nature that is so galling. But the perception, which is really a misunderstanding, that the Liberals are undemocratic is a problem (for them) come the next election. I would remind people, though, that voters don't elected a prime minister or a government or a political party, but an MP. The MP can exercise his or her judgement about any matter in the legislature, including whether to support the government in a confidence motion or take part in a government by supporting an alternative coalition. It is perfectly democratic; the problem is in the public's ignorance about what they are doing on election day and how governments are formed. So Canadians, your anger is not at the undemocratic nature of the Liberal maneuvering but their venality, arrogance and crassness.

The only way the party has acted undemocratically is in selecting its leader, and the selection process shouldn't be a matter of principle -- that is, there is nothing sacrosanct about having the party's grassroots elect their leader. Gerry Nicholls has a nice line about this: "Say what you will about the Liberals, but they sure know how to streamline the democratic process ... they have shown how easy it is to pick a new leader: No conventions, no delegates, no votes. Just acclaim." As Nicholls says, one may wonder "what other time-saving measures they have in mind." The Liberals have often sidestepped proper procedure to get what they want, if the normal process would be politically uncomfortable -- having the courts push the same-sex 'marriage' envelope, for example, rather than debate the issue itself before Parliament.
posted by Paul Tuns at 6:31 PM

 
Great news for Yanks fans

























The New York Post says the New York Yankees will sign left-handed starter C.C. Sabathia. Sabathia is a stud of a pitcher who throws a lot of innings and doesn't give up many runs, so this is a great move as long as he has some arm left after his brief stint with the Milwaukee Brewers.

This should lead to a flood of signings over the next 10 days and the Yankees will be part of that as they rebuild their rotation (they are reported to have bettered the Atlanta Braves' offer to former Blue Jays hurler A.J. Burnett) and try to get younger at a number of positions (1B, corner outfields). This is a great start and what Yankee fan isn't fantasizing about Sabathia opening New Yankee Stadium in April? Think of that moment (priceless) and the reported seven-year, $160 million deal isn't that outrageous.

I'll have more on this tonight.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:43 AM

 
How do we deal with global warming smartly

Bjorn Lomborg gives a good, 28-minute talk about climate change at Reason magazine's 40th anniversary celebration. It focuses on being realistic about our policy reaction to climate change.



I think Lomborg concedes too much, but for those (like me) who concede the debate is over and science and logic lost, he presents a useful viewpoint.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:35 AM

 
The Liberal Syndrome?

One thing that has been noticeable over the past few years and increasingly in the past few weeks is the open disagreement among Liberal Party members (and leaders). Ray Heard could always be counted on to gripe but no one noticed (or cared); John Manley's Globe and Mail column on Saturday calling on Stephane Dion to step down immediately and numerous Stephen LeDrew columns, however, are getting real play. It is hard to imagine Manley penning such a column five years ago.

Such public infighting has typically been a Conservative (Progressive Conservative, Canadian Alliance) problem that the Liberals have successfully avoided. But having discovered the joys of public feuding, or at least disagreement, will they be able to return the days of party cohesion and discipline (at least in public)? I am doubtful. The culture within the party has changed and the coronation of the Russian Count, and consequent slighting of Bob Rae, almost ensures that the public airing of disagreements continues. It is incredible that the Chretien-Martin feud was fought almost entirely out of public view, but such divisions will be on display in the future. This is an incredible boon for the Tories, both in the short and long term.
posted by Paul Tuns at 7:15 AM

 
The bailout and the future of the Big Three

Holman W. Jenkins in the Wall Street Journal on the bailout for Detroit's automakers:

"To become 'viable,' as Congress chooses crazily to understand the term, the Big Three are setting out to squander billions on products that will have to be dumped on consumers at a loss."

The Republican refrain should be: How many bailouts are enough? When will it stop?
posted by Paul Tuns at 7:06 AM

 
Politics Chicago-style

The CNBC reports on the arrest of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich for being a typical Chicago politician:

"Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested on criminal charges on Tuesday, including trying to sell the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by fellow Democrat President-elect Barack Obama, federal prosecutors said.

Blagojevich was also accused of threatening to withhold substantial state assistance to the Tribune Company in connection with the sale of the Chicago Cubs' baseball home Wrigley Field "to induce the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial board members sharply critical" of him.

The 51-year-old Blagojevich and his chief of staff, John Harris, were charged in a 76-page federal indictment with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and solicitation of bribery. Both were taken into custody at their homes in Chicago.

In Illinois, the governor selects a successor when there is a mid-term Senate vacancy. Obama resigned from the Senate soon after winning the Nov. 4 presidential election.

He was seeking a "substantial" salary for himself at a nonprofit foundation or union affiliated organization, a spot on a corporate board for his wife, promises of campaign cash, as well as a cabinet post or ambassadorship in exchange for his Senate choice, the FBI affidavit added."

This kind of stuff is standard operating procedure for politicians from the Second City (but second to none in corruption). Expect more of this on a grander scale now that His Royal Hopeness resides in the White House.
posted by Paul Tuns at 7:00 AM

 
David Miller sucks

There is now statistical proof. The C.D. Howe Institute has published Sand in the Gears: Evaluating the Effects of Toronto’s Land Transfer Tax, a report on Toronto mayor David Miller's program to increase city revenues by taxing housing sales. The authors find that the LTT has had "punishing effects" on the city's housing market in 2008, resulting in fewer houses being sold (16% reduction in the number of single-family dwellings sold) and depressing the average price (1.5% reduction in house values for an average of $6,400 less).

There are real costs to this, including a decrease in happiness. As the authors explain: "the introduction of the tax prevents the movement of prospective buyers who would value a house in a neighbourhood more than the current residents do." The impact of reduced mobility also involves costs to families of continued living in houses that are too small, too big or too far from work (approximately $3,500 per family that forgoes moving). This is all the more galling because there is no benefit to the city: the LTT "has no apparent advantage over an ordinary property tax." (The authors do not get into this, but the LTT might be counter-productive if it deflates housing prices and therefore reduces property taxes in the long-term.)

This is another bad plan from the Left because it failed to account for how taxes affect behaviour. The Left will never learn, and people pay a price for it in housing costs and happiness deferred to avoid such costs.
posted by Paul Tuns at 6:56 AM

 
Not particularly insightful comments on the auto bailout

Steve Miller, who secured the 1979 Chrysler bailout, is quoted by Edward Lapham at Automotive News, saying that the Big Three automakers need "pseudo-bankrupcty" because real legal bankrupcty protections are insufficient for companies as large and politically complex as Ford, GM and Chrysler. The problem is that pseudo-bankruptcy isn't really explained. And the column concludes with a quote from Miller on Washington's plans for the auto industry: "They should just make the companies healthy and let the market do the rest." And how do politicians -- or industry executives for that matter -- make the companies healthy? If anyone knew, wouldn't it already have been done?

Considering he had a hand in the bailout three decades ago, I would like to know Mr. Miller's thoughts on how often Washington needs to help the industry back on its feet.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:46 AM

 
Barack Obama and church-going

He is a hypocrite or a liar for not going to church since being elected president, not a moral degenerate. That's the take of Isaac Chotiner at The Plank (it was an aspect of Obama's life that "was an issue he chose to highlight"), whereas John Judis is sick of people bringing it up (it is a "dumb story" and "an invasion of Obama’s privacy"). I'm with Chotiner, but I would be a little harsher, even though I'm not surprised.

The Politico recently reported that Obama didn't often go to Sunday service during the campaign and hasn't gone since being elected. Instead, he uses his free time to work out at the gym. As Politico noted, Obama did attend church services as part of his campaign (presumably to drum up black support). He also painted himself as a Christian, no doubt to reach out to evangelical and other religious voters. But anyone who knows anything about the Chicago Trinity United Church of Christ that Obama went to for 20 years knows that it is not really a Christian Church; it is a religious club for the city's radical left and it has less to do with prayer than politics.

Obama's religion -- and I would count even his membership in TUCC -- is a sham. I'm not saying he's a Muslim, I don't know if he is. But his Christianity is a faith of political convenience. His not attending church is both hypocritical and dishonest, and it exposes him (once again) as a total fraud. There was no reason why Americans shouldn't have noticed this long ago, but it is another thing in a long list of undesirable facts voters chose to ignore.

Whether he goes to church or not shouldn't be a matter of public discussion unless, as Chotiner says, Obama makes it an issue. He had, he has been called on it, and now everyone can forget that the Democrat president-elect is a liar and a hypocrite. No one cares, although they should. If he'll lie about going to church and what his faith means to him, what won't he lie about?
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:56 AM

 
Something to think about

Megan McArdle:

"Politicians don't listen because they, unlike activists, know that polls lie. People say they want national health insurance. They also say they want lower government spending. But confront them with changing their insurance (with which they are, overwhelmingly, satisfied), or cutting Mom's Medicaid, and they change their minds. They will still tell you that they want national health insurance and lower government spending, but, you see, not that way, where "that way" is any feasible way to deliver their stated goal.

Politicians don't listen because progressive and libertarian activists are not pushing minor schemes to benefit themselves greatly at small cost to everyone else. They are pushing for radical change that will require radical fiscal medicine to effect. That fiscal medicine will not pass unnoticed, and hence, it does not happen.

This does not make me happy. It does not make me happy that I can't privatize social security and eliminate the corporate income tax, and it does not make me happy that I can't have radical agricultural reform and a stiff carbon tax. But the universe is not here to please me."
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:36 AM

 
What I'm reading

1. The Birth of the New NFL: How the 1966 NFL/AFL Merger Transformed Pro Football by Larry Fesler.

2. "The One Hundred Billion Dollar Man: The Annual Public Costs of Father Absence," a research report by Steven L. Nock for teh National Fatherhood Initiative.

3. "Outside Agitator: Naomi Klein and the new new left," by Larissa MacFarquhar in the December 8 New Yorker.

4. "Speculation, Innovation, Regulation: 40 years of covering science and technology," by Ronald Bailey in the December issue of Reason.

5. "Reconciling East and West," by Richard John Neuhaus in the December First Things.

6. The discussion at Cato Unbound on the financial turmoil, most notably the lead article by Lawrence H. White and response by J. Bradford DeLong.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:09 AM

 
AGS revisited

San Diego Chargers 34, Oakland Raiders 7: Way back on Thursday, I predicted the under-rated Bolts would beat and cover the 9.5 point spread over the pathetic Raiders. San Diego might have shut out the Raiders were it not for a fluky 92-yard kickoff return in the second, the black-and-silver's only score. Chargers got off to a 27-0 lead and never looked back.

Chicago Bears 23, Jacksonville Jaguars 10: Jax has really stunk lately, but the Bears have been pretty lackluster themselves. I thought the Bears would win but that they wouldn't cover the 6.5 points, but QB Kyle Orton had a good game (20 for 34, 219 yards, 2 TDs, 85.3 passer rating), leading his team to victory despite trailing in time of possession and leading in total net yards by less than 20.

Minnesota Vikings 20, Detroit Lions 16: I thought the Vikes would win easily, but the Lions seems to have Minny's number: while going 0-2 against them this year, the combined margin of victory is six points. Considering Detroit is 0-13, that counts as some kind of moral victory.

Indianapolis Colts 35, Cincinnati Bengals 3: The Bengals are really, really awful, but Peyton Manning had a great game regardless of the opponent (26/32, 277 yards, 3 TDs, 134 passer rating). Indy had a TD every quarter to ensure my prediction of covering the 13.5 points was correct.

Philadelphia Eagles 20, New York Giants 14: I thought the Giants would win, but the Eagles were never behind during the game in which they seemed to, for the second week in a row, recapture their early season dominance. They had 331 total net yards compared to just 211 for the Giants, and they controlled time of possession by a significant margin (nearly ten minutes). RB Brian Westbrook had more than 200 combined yards receiving and rushing, with a 30-yard run and a 40-yard catch -- and a touchdown on each of those plays. Neither team had a turnover and both had a blocked field goal.

Tennessee Titans 28, Cleveland Browns 9: Titans defense doesn't allow a TD and Tennessee has twice the total net yards (390 to 178) with Browns third-string QB Ken Dorsey having a predictably bad game (22 passes in 43 attempts, 150 yards, an interception and a measly 49.6 passer rating). It wasn't particularly prophetic predicting Titans covering the 2 TD difference.

New Orleans Saints 29, Atlanta Falcons 25: I said this one was a coin flip and indeed it was a back-and-forth game with the Saints winning on a TD at 2:02. I said the difference might be whether the Saints could keep the Falcons under 29 points. (Very prescient, don't you think.) Both teams had 414 total net yards and rookie Falcon QB Matt Ryan had a (barely) better game than Saints counterpart Drew Brees: 99.9 passer rating compared to 99.7.

Houston Texans 24, Green Bay Packers 21: What a strange game for the Texans to win: Houston had four turnovers (compared to just one for the Packers) but still controlled possession for more than 34 minutes and 549 total net yards (161 more than Green Bay). Matt Schaub returned under center to make 28 passes in 42 attempts and 414 yards and 2 TDs for the Texans. Rookie RB Steve Slaton ran for 120 yards and Kris Brown kicked the game-winning field goal with four seconds left. I thought the Packers would win, but instead they are 1-5 in their last six games.

Miami Dolphins 16, Buffalo Bills 3: Dolphins were favoured by one but I predicted they'd prevail in a more one-sided affair. Fins dominated in terms of yardage and possessions. Bills J.P. Losman had 53 rushing yards on five plays, the leading rusher and just five fewer receiving yards than WR Josh Reed.

San Francisco 49ers 24, New York Jets 14: Jets had an awful game: 20:11 minutes of possession and just 181 yards; Niners had 375 total net yards. They tied it up twice before San Fran scored 10 fourth-quarter points. I thought the Jets would win.

New England Patriots 24, Seattle Seahawks 21: I thought the Pats would beat the 'Hawks by more than four; not quite, and they almost didn't win at all. Pats needed 11 fourth-quarter points to overcome a 21-13 deficit. Backup Seneca Wallace had a good game (20/28, 212 yards, 3 TDs ) as a last-minute replacement Matt Hasselbeck in a losing effort.

Denver Broncos 24, Kansas City Chiefs 17: Correctly predicted the Broncs would win without covering the nine point spread and they overcame a 17-14 point deficit at the second half. Jay Culter spread the offense around and finished the day 32 for 40, 286 yards and 2 TDs with one pick.

Arizona Cardinals 34, St. Louis Rams 10: I didn't have a lot of confidence when I predicted the Cards would cover the 14 point spread, but one should never over-estimate the Rams.

Pittsburgh Steelers 20, Dallas Cowboys 13: My two favourite teams provided some really thrilling play. Defense was the order of the day, with the two finishing the first half tied 3-3, with no big plays for either team due to the pressure on both the QBs and receivers. Dallas scored 10 third-quarter points -- one more than all Pittsburgh opponents have scored against the Steelers in the third quarter all season. Pittsburgh with 2:10 left in the game to tie and less than 20 seconds returned an interception for the win. Steelers defensive statistics: they forced five turnovers for the second week in a row and they haven't allowed 300 total net yards once all season (just 289 from the Tony Romo-led Cowboys); Steelers have allowed just 43 points in the past four games. The two teams are 1-2 in sacks and they combined for eight more today. I said Pittsburgh would clear the three-point spread.

Baltimore Ravens 24, Washington Redskins 10: Ravens got ahead 14-0 in the first six minutes and never looked back. Ravens offense is so much better than last year and their defense is still stifling. WR Derrick Mason made a beautiful basket catch for a TD in the fourth quarter that appeared about to be flicked away from him. Redskins looked pretty pathetic from start to finish. I said, "I wouldn't be surprised to see the Ravens in a rout." It was, with Washington's only point coming after a turnover.

Carolina Panthers 38, Tampa Bay Buccaneers 23: The game was close and tight until the fourth quarter (tied 17-17 at the end of 45 minutes), but the teams combined for 28 points in the final 15 minutes, Carolina scoring three-quarters of them. TB QB Jeff Garcia had a much better game than his Panther counterpart Jake Delhomme, but Carolina's running game was the real difference as it became the first team in league history with a pair of team-mates with 100+ yards, 2 TDs and an average of seven yards per carry in the same game (DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart). Delhomme spread the offense around, though, successfully throwing to Steve Smith nine times for 117 yards and a TD. Contra the experts, I picked the Panthers to win, who are now 7-0 at home in '08.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:01 AM

 
I'm with Horowitz on this one

David Horowitz at NRO: "The continuing efforts of a fringe group of conservatives to deny Obama his victory and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president," due to questions about whether he is really an American citizen, "is embarrassing and destructive." As Rush Limbaugh noted in the days following the election, this is unprovable and thus a waste of time. Worse, it mimicks the sore loserism of the Left after Bush's victory in 2000. There are so many ways to criticize Obama, but this is a dead end. Why choose political futility and self-marginalization in a useless campaign that could result in a real political and constitutional crisis if it were successful:

"Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for president trumps all others. But how viable will our Constitution be if five Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?"

The Schitzoid Right needs to relax a bit. We shouldn't become like our political opponents and make politics another form of warfare, but rather provide sensible alternatives to the status quo so that when it comes time to replace the incumbent in four years, conservatives will have demonstrated that they deserve to be privileged with such power again.
posted by Paul Tuns at 8:46 PM

 
Socialist States of America

Andrew Roth at the Club for Growth blog notes, "Over 150 banks have now accepted a bailout from the government's TARP plan." Mark Steyn has often said the problem with Canada's health care system has less to do with health outcomes than that it makes people reliant on the state. One worries for America's capitalists when they rely on the state for bailouts for the same reason.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:13 AM

 
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

But outright theft?

Andrea Mrozek at ProWomanProLife doesn't tell us what she's reading, she shows us. A nice collection of bed-time reading she has but I want to highlight one of them. Everyone should read Chesterton's Brave New Family, a collection of writings on marriage, sex, love, etc..., and what strikes me about the essays and excerpts is how many issues Chesterton was dealing with a century ago that we struggle with today. I am constantly re-reading BNF to better arm myself in making pro-life, pro-family arguments but also to remind myself that there is nothing new under the Sun.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:08 AM

 
Me in Report on Harper and the road to a majority

This December cover story in Report Magazine seems a little dated now, but the advice (that the road to a majority need not run through Quebec) is still valid.































"Minority Rules: Can the Conservatives ever win a majority?"
by Paul Tuns
Report Magazine
December 2008

The standard storyline in the aftermath of the October 14 election was that it was pointless. Prime Minister Stephen Harper called an election in September, the storytellers say, in order to win a majority. Indeed, party insiders had the polling that showed that the magic number of 155 seats was well within reach probably with room to spare by doubling their seats in Quebec, improving their showing in Ontario and adding a handful of new MPs from Atlantic Canada and British Columbia.

Alas, Canadian voters thwarted those plans. Voters did, however, provide a renewed mandate and a larger minority. The Conservatives won 143 seats up from 124 in 2006. The larger minority can be defeated by the Opposition, but only if all three agree.

Because the Tories did not win a majority, the pundits are suggesting that even though the Conservatives won the election, they actually lost. The real story, though, is more complex. For the Tories, the 2008 election provided mixed results one of a missed majority while still being better positioned in Parliament and, potentially, the next election. At the same time, the results raise a number of difficult questions. What does it take to win a sizeable portion of seats in Quebec? Can the Tories make up the seats elsewhere to win a majority without growth in Quebec? Can they ever crack Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, where the Tories have been shut out since 1988?

First, the good news for Harper and his Conservatives.

In Ottawa during the next Parliament, the Conservatives will have more seats than the next two largest parties, the Liberals (76) and Bloc Quebecois (50), combined. The NDP won 37 seats, and two independents were re-elected; the Green Party was shut out of Parliament. Harper has claimed that the election results demonstrate that Canadians support the direction the Conservative government has taken the past 30 months, and has vowed to follow through with his centre-right agenda of senate reform, criminal justice and tax cuts for business. It is unlikely that all three opposition parties are ready to oppose these measures, because none have the money nor the inclination to force another election in the near future. The Liberals will have a leadership race, and the NDP and Bloc do not have the numbers to defeat the government without the Grits. Harper has time to govern. Still, the Conservatives already have their eyes on the next election, and may still consider Quebec the grand prize. It will not be easy, but it might not even be necessary.

Have Tories hit a ceiling in Quebec?

Going into the October 14 election, supposedly with an eye to doubling the 11 seats they had in la belle province, they actually lost one. However, in the week before the election, some pundits were predicting the Tories could lose half their Quebec seats. What happened?

In their first term in government, the Harper Conservatives allowed the Quebec provincial government a seat at a United Nations body, and recognized Quebec as a nation. Yet, as the campaign was being waged, and it was clear the Conservatives were not making gains, the standard storyline became Quebeckers' opposition to Harper's cuts to arts funding and his get-tough-on-crime approach.

There is no doubt that Quebec is more liberal than the rest of the country, but might the support for the Bloc Quebecois reflect something else? The Bloc won two-thirds of Quebec's 75 seats, the Liberals 15 and the Tories 10. Support for the Bloc runs ahead of polling support for separating, so voting for the Bloc might be a form of protest against Ottawa in general; the Bloc has remained a force in the province during both Liberal and Conservative federal governments. Regional grievances and pride run deep, and Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe repeatedly hammered away at the idea that only his party would stand up for Quebec values and protect Quebec's interests in Parliament.

While it is still too early to write off Quebec, it is obvious there will be great challenges to get voters there to reconsider their voting patterns. A Vancouver Sun editorial identified the problem: "The challenge will be to woo Quebec without overindulging what often seems from here to be an already spoiled child of Confederation. Part of the riddle of Quebec is that giving in to ever-increasing demands only bolsters the Bloc's arguments that sending a Quebec-first party to Ottawa is in the province's best interests." The Conservatives will spend part of their new mandate figuring out if solving this riddle is worth the effort.

David Herle, a former Paul Martin strategist, told The National on CBC that Quebec could have virtually no effect on the government, but a disproportionate effect on Parliament. That seems like a contradiction, but it isn't; the Bloc cannot form the government and has no interest in working with the parties that can, but its very existence prevents other parties from obtaining a majority. It appears that the road to a majority lays elsewhere.

Major gains in Ontario

The Conservatives have been making impressive inroads in Ontario over the past three elections. One need only remember the Chretien years, when Ontario almost exclusively sent Liberals to Ottawa. The Reform, Progressive Conservative and Canadian Alliance parties combined for a grand total of four seats in the 1993, 1997 and 2000 elections. In 2004 – the first year in which Stephen Harper led the newly united Progressive Conservative and Canadian Alliance parties under the Conservative Party banner – the Tories elected 24 MPs out of 106 in vote-rich Ontario. Two years later, the Tories sent 40 MPs to Ottawa, compared to 54 Liberals and 12 NDP. This year, the Conservatives nearly won a majority of Ontario seats (51), compared to 38 for the Liberals and 17 for the NDP. In terms of voting percentage, the Conservatives won Ontario 39 percent to 34 percent for the Liberals. In 2006, the Liberals won 40 percent-35 percent. That is a 10-point swing in the Conservative's favour. More than half the Liberal MPs in Ontario come from Toronto.

Significantly, the Tories doubled their seats in the 905 – the area around Toronto nicknamed after its area code – from five to ten. In 2006, they won the mostly rural ridings in the 905, such as Halton and Durham, or largely white, middle-class cities such as Burlington and Whitby-Oshawa. But in 2008, they added suburban ridings with more diverse demographics – Newmarket-Aurora, Oakridges-Markham, Oakville, Thornhill, and Mississauga-Erindale.

Even in places they did not win, the contests were closer, especially in Brampton and Mississauga. In Brampton West, for example, the Tories lost by 7,600 votes in 2006, but came within 123 votes of an upset this time around. In Mississauga-Brampton, they halved their deficit from 13,000 votes to 6,500, and were only 2,000 votes off the mark in Mississauga South.

While the Conservatives did not win any seats in Toronto, they closed the gap between themselves and the Liberals. The Tories won more than a quarter of the vote, and the Liberals fell below 50 percent for the first time since the Mulroney years; in many ridings the margin of defeat for the Conservatives was a few thousand rather than 10,000-20,000 votes they lost by in 2006.

Conservative inroads with minority voters

Likewise, the Tories won the seats surrounding Vancouver, but none in the downtown itself. However, it came within a few hundred votes of winning three ridings, including forcing a judicial recount in Vancouver South, where Conservative Wai Young fell short 33 votes of defeating former federal health minister Ujjal Dosanjh.

To win in the suburbs and close the gap in Toronto and Vancouver, the Tories had to win over ethnic voters, especially within the Chinese, Sikh, Indian and Jewish communities. The credit for this successful outreach is being given to Jason Kenney, the MP from Calgary Southeast and Secretary of State for Multiculturalism. The crowning achievement is Richmond, B.C., where Conservative Alice Wong easily defeated long-time Liberal incumbent Raymond Chan. Immigrants comprise 61 percent of the riding's population, and it is the most Chinese riding in the country (52 percent of residents). Wong won with 49.77 percent of the vote by a margin of more than 8,000.

Of course, it was not all Kenney's outreach work. The Conservative government has apologized for the Chinese head tax, and Harper promised to increase trade opportunities with India. Jewish voters in the Greater Toronto Area appreciate the Conservative government's even-handed approach to Israel.

Ethnic groups who previously eschewed the Tories are now supporting them. This has two benefits. First, it chips away at the Liberals by plying away traditionally loyal constituencies. Second, and relatedly, it puts a large number of suburban – and perhaps eventually big-city – ridings, in play.

It is too early to tell whether this was a one-election phenomenon, or whether it portends a political realignment. But as David Mitchell, a political historian at Queen's University in Kingston, told the National Post, the Conservatives have positioned themselves to make major inroads in the cities: "They certainly have laid a very strong foundation for their ultimate assault on urban Canada."

Conservatives on the cusp of a majority

Mitchell says that "Step by step," the Conservatives "are becoming the only party in the land today that actually is a national party, that not only has strength in every region, but also within those regions and provinces – rural, suburban and urban." David Docherty, dean of arts at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, takes a different view. He told CTV that, "It now looks like Harper can win his majority – getting a seat in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver." He sees parallels with Pierre Trudeau, who won a majority in 1980 without western Canadian seats. Another model would be Ontario's Progressive Conservative premier Mike Harris, who won re-election in 1999 with hardly any Toronto representation by ringing up wins in the Greater Toronto Area.

There have been subtle shifts among ethnic voters and suburbanites. Polling by Harris-Decima found that the Conservatives and Liberals run even among women. (Typically, Liberals have a solid lead among this demographic.) For the first time since 1979, the Conservatives won a seat in Prince Edward Island, and they picked up seats in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The Tories are winning in the suburbs, and doing better in the big cities. Only Quebec does not seem to be moving toward the Conservatives. These shifts might be temporary, or they might portend a political realignment.

The challenge – and opportunity – for Harper and his party is to find a path to a majority building on their successes. In the meantime, they can work with their increased minority until they finally find a way of breaking through that ceiling of 155 seats. It is too early to say if that will happen, but there are plenty of signs that it is possible, because there is still room to grow in Atlantic Canada, Ontario and British Columbia. And as the Tories discovered this time, the best sales pitch to voters is to demonstrate competency in governing. Another few years of doing so might be enough to deliver the elusive majority the Conservatives so desperately want.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:16 AM

 
Me on the Obama victory and Canada in Report

This is a sidebar to the Harper story that appears in the current Report Magazine (you have to scroll past the main story) debunking the conventional Canadian wisdom that an Obama victory is good for Canada.

What does Obama mean for Canada?
By Paul Tuns
Report Magazine
December 2008

In the summer of 2007, Barack Obama, then the junior senator from Illinois and a long shot to defeat his colleague Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, addressed the annual AFL-CIO convention. He said that if he was elected president in 2008, he would "immediately call the president of Mexico, the president of Canada, to try to amend NAFTA".

Obama displayed an ignorance of America's largest trading partner by calling the prime minister a president. That slight was only mildly troubling, however, compared to the policy implications of his comments.

Obama might have been pandering to union workers who want to close America off to competition from the rest of the world, but the result would be a threat to Ontario"s manufacturing sector and the rest of the country's natural resource industries.

Among the reasons Obama, a liberal Democrat, would want to "reconsider" NAFTA is to increase protection for the environment and protect American jobs against competition. The real concern on those issues is Mexico, but Canada will be affected if the treaty is renegotiated or scrapped.

Noting the increase in anti-free-trade Democrats elected to the Senate in recent years, Canadian-born, Washington-based political commentator David Frum has observed that the even if Obama's NAFTA comments were merely political posturing, President Obama will "find it difficult to reverse himself in the face of a protectionist Congress."

But NAFTA is not the only trade issue on the table that could adversely affect Canada. An America that puts up trade restrictions against the rest of the world might plunge the global economy into a depression, just as the Smoot-Hawley trade restrictions imposed in the early 1930s made the Great Depression worse than it needed to be. Something similar today would affect Canadian natural-resource exports to emerging markets in Asia and Latin America.

Obama's environmental policies could also affect the Canadian economy. Obama might impose new restrictions on foreign-made goods that have a large carbon footprint. Alberta's oilsands could fall victim to barriers to the American energy market under the guise of environmental protection. Ontario's already weak manufacturing sector could be harmed if an Obama administration supports stricter gas standards for vehicles.

What an Obama administration does in Iraq and Afghanistan could also affect Canadian foreign policy. If the U.S. leaves Iraq but bolsters their troops in Afghanistan, Canadian forces will have an easier job until 2011; but if the U.S. leaves the Middle East entirely, Canada's military might be stretched even further.

Some Canadian pundits have talked about Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper not being able to work with the liberal Democrat Obama, mostly due to ideological differences. That seems unlikely. With more than $560 billion in trade, sharing a 5061-kilometre border and having common interests that arise from being neighbours, not working together is not an option. As former U.S. ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci says: "It's in each of our national interests to work together. We're inter-connected, we're dependent on each other, we have a lot of common interests and common values, and I think they will work together no matter who it is".

Talking to a health conference in Toronto just before the U.S. election, former prime minister Jean Chretien echoed Cellucci, said the Canadian prime minister and American president must work together and noted that he was on good terms with both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

He said there are always rough spots and disagreements, but overall "we have very good relations." He added, "The press wanted me to have bad relations with George W. [Bush]," but that differences over world-view need not thwart pursuing the common interests of the two countries.

Considering the harm an Obama administration's policies might cause to Canada, Harper had better be able to work with the new U.S. president.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:16 AM

 
Quote of the day

"I don't trust chowder."

-- John Madden on Sunday Night Football (NBC)
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:12 PM

 
Obama's stimulus plan...

Is a giant public works program, which the New York Times describes as "a vast infrastructure program, which also includes work on schools, sewer systems, mass transit, electrical grids, dams and other public utilities." The Times reports:

"Mr. Obama’s plan, if enacted, would be in part a government-directed industrial policy, with lawmakers and administration officials picking winners and losers among private projects and raining large amounts of taxpayer money on them."

What can't go wrong with that? Many economists worry that money directed by government to certain projects prevent market allocation -- that is, effecient allocations -- of resources. The Times reports:

"Mr. Obama also responded to criticism of waste and inefficiency in such programs by promising new spending rules, like a requirement that states act quickly to invest in roads and bridges or sacrifice federal money."

But how does government spending money quickly respond to criticism of government spending?
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:12 PM

 
November Interim is online

The paper is available here. Notable stories:

I have a story on Stephen Harper's real hidden agenda.

Our post-federal election editorial on the Conservative Party's search for its soul.

Donald DeMarco's column on the decision of Olympic athlete Tasha Danvers-Smith not to abort her child.

My interview with Glenn Penner of Voice of the Martyrs on the Christian persecution around the globe. And our editorial on persecution at home at the hands of the human rights commissions.

Assistant editor Tony Gosgnach interviews William Gairdner about the problem with liberalism.

Michael Coren's satirical letter to the prime minister complaining that he does not have the right to marry himself.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:07 PM

 
Don't blame the pro-lifers

Ross Douthat writing in the New York Times about the GOP and the pro-life issue begins:

"An iron law of recent American politics dictates that any Republican setback at the polls will be quickly pinned on the pro-life movement."

Noting that several prominent conservatives have advised jettisoning the Republican's pro-life plank, Douthat says:

"For pro-lifers, these refrains are as frustrating as they are familiar. But more frustrating than the blame game is the equally familiar advice that has accompanied it. Most abortion opponents can recite the litany by heart. Their movement should focus on changing hearts and minds, rather than the law. It should be more consistently pro-life, by helping human beings outside the womb as well as those within it. It should cease trying to roll back the sexual revolution and standing athwart science yelling 'stop!' And above all, it should be less absolutist, and more amenable to compromise.

Obviously there’s wisdom in some of these suggestions. But pro-lifers have already taken much of it to heart."

Douthat points to polls that show America is ready for a 'compromise' on the issue, favouring many common-sense restrictions. The pro-life movement might not be enthusiastic about something short of a complete ban, but more restrictions mean fewer abortions and the changing of the goal-posts will result in a changed political imagination in which the public will become more open to a (more) complete ban.

But as Routhat observes, as long as two Supreme Court decisions (Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey) are the law of the land, no serious restrictions which reflect the changed hearts and minds won over in the culture wars, are safe from judicial imperialism.

In short, there are two points: don't blame the pro-life wing of the GOP and don't lecture it on how to proceed when the change in tactics could be powerless to affect further change when it comes to abortion.
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:00 PM

 
Me on TV

I'm on Behind the Story on CTS tonight (7-8 pm). Topics include: coalition politics, the Obama administration, and Mumbai. All three guests were on the right, but there was still enough disagreement to make the show interesting, most notably when Jamie Glazov went all Alex Baldwin on us.
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:48 PM

 
CPI -- Christmas Price Index -- up more than 8%































PNC Wealth Management calculates that the cost of the items in the Twelve Days of Christmas and finds that despite decreases in the cost of hens, geese and gold rings, the overall cost for will be up 8.1%. The "PNC CPI is $21,080 in 2008, $1,573 more than last year."

PNC found that the seven swans-a-swimming were up 33.3% to $5,600.

As James Dunigan, managing executive of investments for PNC Wealth Management, noted, "Omitting the Seven Swans-a-Swimming may be a tempting way for a True Love to hold the line on costs."

Other increases: turtle doves (37.5% to $56), partridges (33.3% to $20), pear trees (33.3% to $199.99), and the performers -- drummers drumming, pipers piping and lords-a-leaping -- (up 3%).

Items that are decreasing in cost: five gold rings (down 11.4% to $349.95), three french hens (33.3% to $30) and six geese-a-laying ($240).

Four calling birds are the same as in 2007, at $599.96.

For the eight maids-a-milking, PNC used unskilled labourers which is up 27% to $6.55/hr because of changes in the minimum wage law.

They also found that it costs more to buy many of the items online and that the total cost of convenience is $31,957 -- nearly $11,000 more.

For more about the Christmas Price Index, check out PNC's dedicated CPI website.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:32 PM

 
Any given Sunday










Jacksonville Jaguars at Chicago Bears: These two teams might be headed for a stinker, combining for just two wins in their past 10 games. Kyle Orton hasn't been the same since injuring his ankle in early November and the Bears need him to regain his early season form. The Bears rely heavily on Matt Forte, a rookie and one of the best running backs in the game: 248 carries, 1012 yards, six TDs. But, with Orton's injury and the use of a backup, the receiving corps has little to show for their game time. Bears favoured by 6.5 points and while I think they win, I don't see them covering.

Minnesota Vikings at Detroit Lions: Division leading Vikes against the 0-12 Lions. Might have been close if the drug-related suspensions to the pair of Williams (Kevin and Pat) had not been delayed; for now, the strong Vikings defense is left intact. RB Adrian Peterson is one of the best runners in the game and Detroit gives up 176.9 rushing yards per game. Minny wins and covers the nine points. Pay no attention to the week six game in which the Vikings barely held onto a two-point victory against the Lions at home.

Cincinnati Bengals at Indianapolis Colts: People are down on the Colts because Peyton Manning's offense failed to score a TD in Cleveland last week. Manning doesn't normally play well outdoors in winter conditions (which will be a problem if he has to face the Steelers or Jets in January football) but he should rebound against the Bengals who are rumoured to be an NFL team. Colts cover the 13.5 points; Bengals have lost their road games by an average of 13 points.

Philadelphia Eagles at New York Giants: Two weeks ago, the football world was down on Donovan McNabb because he capped off an inconsistent year with back-to-back horrible games. He had a great day on Thanksgiving and the football world thinks that McNabb is rehabilitated into a great QB. I'll take the multi-game indicators over one good game against the Arizona Cardinals weak pass defense. And the Eagles are headed to New Jersey to face the New York Giants who have no perceptible weakness. The storyline of the game is how the Giants deal with the Plaxico Burress controversy, although the Giants have won without him twice this year already. Heavy betting in Philly's favour have forced the spread down to seven which is reasonable if McNabb and company have great games, but that is a big if. G-Men beat the spread.

Cleveland Browns at Tennessee Titans: The Browns are starting third-string QB Ken Dorsey and Tennessee's superior pass rush will prevent him from doing much. The Titans are among the league's best defensive and running offense teams, their QB Kerry Collins is more than competent, and they have had 10 days off since their Thanksgiving massacre of the Lions. Hard to imagine this game not being over by half-time. Fourteen points are a lot to cover, but the Titans do so in a clear mis-match.

Atlanta Falcons at New Orleans Saints: This is one of those flip a coin matches because whatever analysis you do -- and you could make a pretty strong case for either team winning -- the game will come down to minimizing turnovers and special teams (field position). My coin knew to pick the Saints because they are playing at home where they are 5-1 in 2008, but I might make the coin toss a two-out-of-three. The gut says the Falcons with their offense of QB Matt Ryan, RB Michael Turner and WR Roddy White. Saints QB Drew Brees is good for the points to win, but the Saints defense is the question mark: New Orleans has given up 29 points or more seven times this year.

Houston Texans at Green Bay Packers: The Texans looked good against Jacksonville at home last week on Monday Night Football, but that isn't saying much. In all seriousness, though, Houston has been playing better over the past month. The Packers haven't, going 1-4 over their past five games. Still, the Packers, at 5-7, are an under-rated team. They have scored more than they have allowed (334-295) and are only four points away from being the second highest scoring team in the NFC. Packers do well when their run game is on, spreading defenses and giving QB Aaron Rodgers lots of options and less pressure to make big plays. We don't know what kind of cold weather QB Rogers is, but we shouldn't expect Houston to do well in the near Arctic conditions in Green Bay. Packers win and cover the six-point spread.

Miami Dolphins "at" Buffalo Bills: The Bills started 5-1 feasting on teams with sub-500 records, but since have looked a like one of those horrible Ohio franchises. It is too bad for the Bills that they are playing this winter 'home' game against a southern rival in the domed confines of the Rogers Center in Toronto. With everything falling apart and an injury to QB Trent Edwards (who was struggling before he was hurt), the Bills needed a break. Instead, they are playing in conditions much more conducive to the Fins than the Bills, while Miami is playing quality football. Miami is favoured by one but facing a Bills team decimated by injuries and led by J.P. Losman, the Dolphins will win by much more. Watch for a diverse and adaptive offense; if there were awards for co-ordinators, the Dolphins' offensive co-ordinator Dan Henning would get it this year.

New York Jets at San Francisco 49ers: The Jets are a good team and fickle football pundits are jumping off the bandwagon after one bad home game against the Denver Broncos. But, the Jets have a lot of offensive weapons and a constantly improving and often stifling defense. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Niners keep the game close, but I don't expect that to happen. Jets win and cover the 3.5 point spread because the green gang's run defense stops RB Frank Gore.

New England Patriots at Seattle Seahawks: I expect Matt Cassel to rebound after a predictably miserable week against the miserly defense of the Pittsburgh Steelers. The 'Hawks pass defense is atrocious. According to Football Outsiders' DVOA, a total statistic that measures a team's plays against the league average in each situation, the Patriots have the worst red zone defense in the NFL, so if Seattle can get into their opponent's 20 yards, they have an excellent chance at scoring. Still, the Pats are playing for a playoff berth and to show last week's thumping at the hands of the Steelers was a fluke. Seattle has very little run offense to the Pats will blitz QB Matt Hasselbeck and cover his receivers like a blanket. Pats are favoured by four and the only thing that keeps the spread that close is the 12th man of the fans. Not good enough and the Pats cover.

Kansas City Chiefs at Denver Broncos: The Broncos had everything going for them last week in their upset against the Jets: Jay Cutler's amazing arm, three quality receivers and a defense that is slowly but steadily getting better. The Chiefs are doing a little better moving the ball along the field with QB Tyler Thigpen, but not better enough to actually, you know, win a game. Broncs by nine sound like too much, though.

St. Louis Rams at Arizona Cardinals: Cards are favoured by 14 and they won their first season meeting 34-13, two TDs is a lot for a team that is having trouble convincing people they actually deserve the playoff spot they'll clinch with a victory on Sunday. I've been up on Arizona's high octane aerial offense all year and even I'm doubting them. And then you look at how awful the Rams are. Cards win and cover -- but I wouldn't have the confidence to make that prediction if actual money was on the line.

Dallas Cowboys at Pittsburgh Steelers: This game will have the feel of a Super Bowl -- two of the sports most storied franchises (they've met in three Super Bowls already and it is not unimaginable that this is a prelude to this year's prize), both are superb at defense, both have QBs that can make big plays and, for Dallas at least, perhaps a playoff berth on the line. Steelers and Cowboys are 1-2 in sacks, although Ben Roethlisberger has been sacked only twice in the last 2.5 games. As The Sporting News' Vinnie Iyer says, neither team can afford to expose their QB by dropping back 40-45 times, so both Big Ben and Tony Romo will hand the ball off to their RBs. That's a problem for the Cowboys; Marion Barber did not make the trip to Pittsburgh. Romo's targets (WRs TO and Roy Williams, TE Jason Witten) are normally good enough to get into position when Romo is rushed, but there is no defense quite like Pittsburgh's or the superhuman ability of Troy Polamau to get to anyone, anywhere quickly. Key for Steelers is to prevent Dallas from getting inside their 20-yard line: Cowboys have 22 TDs in 34 red zone possessions. Steelers are favoured by three and I think they do it because 1) they are at home, 2) their defense is far superior to what Dallas has got, 3) Barber's toe woes, and 4) Big Ben adjusts to the pressure and finds his short-range targets more consistently than does Romo.

Washington Redskins at Baltimore Ravens: Washington has looked pretty terrible lately, averaging just 11 points per game over the past month -- and now they face one of the game's best defenses. Skins QB Jason Campbell is making loads of mistakes every game after being close to flawless after the first game against the Giants through to mid-October. RB Clinton Portis is playing through injuries which is limiting his effectiveness. In recent years you still wouldn't take the Ravens by 5.5 because their offense couldn't be counted on the get the points. This year is different. QB Joe Flacco is a good game caller who seems to improve from week to week and offensive co-ordinator Cam Cameron (who was an offensive coach with the lame 1-15 Dolphins last year) is trusting Flacco to make bigger plays. Also, the running game has improved since ditching Willis McGahee for Le'Ron McClain and Ray Rice. Ravens win and easily cover; I wouldn't be surprised to see the Ravens in a rout.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers at Carolina Panthers: The Panthers are favoured by three, but most of the football 'experts' are taking the Bucs. On an analytical level that may make sense: the Panthers are now a run-first team, becoming overly dependent on RB DeAngelo Williams and minimizing the role of WR Steve Smith and the Bucs have a pretty solid run defense. Meanwhile, the once dominating D of the Panthers has allowed 76 points in its last two games and has slid in most defensive categories over the past month even if Julius Peppers was named the NFC Defensive Player of the Month. Still, the Panthers seem to do something special at home where they are a perfect 6-0 at home this year. If Jake Delhomme can get the ball to Smith and spread the Tampa defense so they can't rely on their stout seven up front, Carolina wins.
posted by Paul Tuns at 6:13 PM

 
The road to Africa's hell is paved with the good intentions of Western taxpayers

Martin Durkin is interviewed by FrontPageMag's Jamie Glazov about how aid is hurting its intended recipients:

"Aid kills democracy. It makes being in power enormously lucrative. When going into (corrupt) politics or becoming a (corrupt) state official is a more attractive career option than starting a business, it will obviously end in tears. It means that politics attracts gangsters, indeed creates gangsters. The gangsters don’t want to relinquish power, so another set of gangsters, thinly dressed as liberators, arm themselves and make war.

The chain of cause and effect is so glaringly obvious, and yet the liberal left in the West really get uppity if you point it out to them. They are believers in state patronage, on a national and international level, and are blind to its hideous consequences."

The whole interview is worth reading.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:55 PM

 
Happy anniversary for freedom, now let the hypocrisy roll

It was 75 years ago today that prohibition was ended when Utah voted to ratify the 21st Amendment to repeal the 19th Amendment banning alcohol. As Ethan Nadelmann writes in the Wall Street Journal, the public realized "the evils of failed suppression far outweighed the evils of alcohol consumption." You think America would learn, but today the government continues to be the cause of as many problems due to its war on drugs as would be suffered in a society that had a less nanny statist view of the issue. In some ways, alcohol is no more dangerous than some illegal drugs, but as Nadelmann, the executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, says, booze is the devil we know. That is, we have it (alcohol consumption) now, so we can tolerate it but because drugs are illegal, we won't countenance them. But that approach is wrong, saying something is wrong because it is illegal rather illegal because it is wrong. And it ignores the consequences of policies: for too many, moralizer is so much more satisfying than actually helping people.

What did Will Rogers say about prohibition? "Why don't they pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting anybody from learning anything? If it works as well as prohibition did, in five years Americans would be the smartest race of people on Earth." The United States hasn't learned anything from prohibition -- either the (supposedly) admitted error of 1920's prohibition or the lessons of the dangerous and often counter-productive war on drugs.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:28 PM

 
Ottawa politics

Despite the grumbling of Liberal MPs, there will still likely be a coalition of Left, Lefter and Leaving Canada in the New Year. Having come so close to tasting power, the socialist and separatist union is still viable -- unless the Governor General permits an election after the Tories fall on a confidence vote when the House of Commons resumes in January.

Anyway, having looked for a name for the unholy alliance, I finally found two I like, both in today's John Robson Ottawa Citizen column: the Blunderals and the Blendables. The latter reminds me of a Rick Mercer Grit song and dance number after last year's budget which finished with Mercer, the Liberal spokesman, declaring in exasperation, "we're adaptable."

While I don't agree with the idea of a 'mandate' for this or that issue, I don't think the Liberals have one for this coalition because Stephane Dion repeatedly nixed the idea, going so far as to criticize Jack Layton as disastrous for the economy. Robson gets to this point, too:

"Now consider Canada in 2008. No sane person cast a ballot in the last federal election unaware that Conservative members would favour the Harper ministry while Liberal, NDP and BQ members would not. But no one knew this coalition was even a possibility, while its hastily-cobbled-together program lacks key planks from each of its members' election platforms (the Green Shift for the Liberals, a corporate tax hike for the NDP and sovereignty for the Bloc). I respectfully submit that a House thus chosen has a mandate to bring down the Harper ministry if it chooses, but not to install the Blendable Blunderals. For that an appeal to the country is necessary. And it seems most unlikely this coalition could survive one."
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:03 AM

 
Things to think about

Patri Friedman (a sometime professional poker player, an advocate of seasteading, and grandson of Milton) says:

"Government has stagnated. Very little experimentation. (What do you expect when it's basically impossible to start a new country or change an existing one? How do you expect to get technological advances without experimentation?)"

Most of PF's politics are anarcho-capitalist (and thus attractively loony), including the above paragraph. But I think he has hit the nail on the head with a practical problem with no practical answer.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:54 PM

 
Bailout Nation

Larry Kudlow in The Corner:

"But bailout nation continues in a story in this morning’s Wall Street Journal. Car rental company Avis wants TARP [Troubled Asset Relief Program] money now. BlueFire Ethanol, Inc. wants TARP money. The Equipment Leasing and Financial Association wants TARP money for its member companies. There’s a pattern here. Any economic sector that uses credit is coming ’round to the view that it deserves TARP money. That’s right. A TARP for all seasons. A TARP for all companies. That’s what we’ve created here."

Avis?

In July I made a bet with a friend that the United States would be a socialist country by 2015, regardless of who won the election (socialism being defined by the size of government as a percentage of GDP or a complicated formula to determine the percentage of US workers employed by government agencies or 'private' companies that are bailed out by Washington). Unfortunately, I think I'm going to win this bet.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:42 PM

 
Best overview of what has happened this past week in Canadian politics

Professor John von Heyking from the University of Lethbridge explains the machinations in Ottawa -- and the why -- to American readers at the Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs. But I'm looking forward to this:

"Canada faced a situation where the figurehead Governor-General will actually exercise what John Locke called 'prerogative' power. My next article will explain how this works in the Canadian context. That is, what powers does the Head of State have to deal with a constitutional crisis arising from a political crisis?"

Canadian readers could benefit from such an education, also.
posted by Paul Tuns at 11:36 PM

 
Any given Thursday

Oakland Raiders at San Diego Chargers: The Chargers are 4-8 but have outscored opponents 290-274. Half of their losses have come in the final 24 seconds. As my son Patrick has noted, if games were 59 minutes and 30 seconds long, the Chargers would be the division leader with a 8-4 record. What I'm saying is that the Bolts are an under performing team not a bad one. If the Raiders couldn't beat the hapless and hopeless Kansas City Chiefs at home last Sunday, they won't be able to beat the Chargers in San Diego. The Chargers have the league-worst pass defense but the Raiders run the ball. Watch for struggling RB LaDainian Tomlinson to run against the Raiders: Oakland gives up 158.8 rushing yards per game. Chargers win and should cover the 9.5. If it is any closer, this season's history indicates the Bolts will cough up the lead in one of the final plays of the game.
posted by Paul Tuns at 2:17 PM

 
FFOF goes to the CBC

Kathy Shaidle tells of her adventure seeing John Bolton at a taping of some CBC show and the whole post is worth reading. Here is Kathy on being inside the CBC building:

"Now, there is more uniformed security in the building that you'd ever believe. And employees have to swipe a card to get through turnstiles to get to work. Judging from the folks we saw doing just that in our short time there, all CBC employees except for the security guards are a) gay white men, b) straight white women, c) union guys who look like the homeless."

And then there is what constitutes early for George Stroumboulopoulos (11 am).

And the best exchange ever:

"George (smirk): 'Well that's pretty conVEEEENient since America is the one that makes all the rules, huh?'

Bolton: 'If America made all the rules, the world would look very different, believe me'."
posted by Paul Tuns at 1:40 PM

 
PM PM?

Many Conservatives and even some grassroots conservatives seem to think that Stephen Harper is toast. I say its too early to tell and that he has been written off before, but let's jump ahead nonetheless. Who replaces Harper if he is forced out or quits?

Jim Prentice and John Baird are often mentioned but they are social liberals and thus unlikely to win the leadership or unite conservatives in the event that they become leader. Stockwell Day and Jason Kenney have the social conservative 'baggage' that prevents them from uniting the party if they find the numbers to become leader. Ontario Tories still like to mention Mike Harris but my impression is that he is done with elected politics and doesn't ever want to shake a voter's hand again.

Who has the profile and network, is broadly conservative and able to bring together a right-leaning coalition, and has the desire to run? Preston Manning.

I'm not saying I'm for the idea, I just think it makes a lot of sense. He has never lost the desire to be prime minister and is just conservative enough to unite the right under his leadership. His new-found statesman status might allow him to reach out to independent voters and protect him from (some) media assaults. He is an ideas guy and has become interested in the issue that we are repeatedly told will define politics in the future (the environment).

Again, this is not an endorsement. But remember you read it here first that he would be a formidable (leadership) candidate and is probably thinking about it.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:51 PM

 
AGS revisited

San Francisco 49ers 10, Buffalo Bills 3: What is more surprising: that the Niners won in Buffalo or that Buffalo didn't score a TD and that Trent Edwards was benched? It was a close game (indeed the Bills had 155 more total yards) except for the Niners TD. Like everyone in the world, I thought the Bills would win.

Baltimore Ravens 34, Cincinnati Bengals 3: It's embarrassing to lose by 31 points at home. But Cincy knows embarrassment, averaging just 11 points in their last seven games, inclusive of this loss. Ravens continue to win and to score. WR Mark Clayton had an incredible one-handed catch for a 70-yard play. (Press play on the video and watch the play at the 50-second mark.) I'm liking Baltimore's offense led by rookie QB Joe Flacco (119.9 passer rating, 280 yards, 2 TDs today) and predicted them to win and cover the seven.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers 23, New Orleans Saints 20: Saints QB Drew Brees had nearly 300 yards and 2 TD passes, but also had three picks. Bucs capitalized, by scoring the game-winning field goal on Brees' interception with four minutes left in the game and by killing the clock when they got another pick with less than two minutes left. I correctly predicted Bucs win but don't cover the 4.5 spread.

New York Giants 23, Washington Redskins 7: I said they would easily cover the 3.5 point spread. Giants' record might not be perfect, but their play is right now. Eli Manning had his first 300-yard game in more than 20 games. G-Men defense put a lot of pressure on Skins' QB Jason Campbell and Manning spread the offense around and this game was never close.

Miami Dolphins 16, St. Louis Rams 12: Rams QB Marc Bulger threw three critical interceptions in final 17 minutes. Dolphins are 7-5, just one game out of a playoff spot. I thought they would score more against the Rams' porous defense and cover the 7.5 spread.

Indianapolis Colts 10, Cleveland Browns 6: Peyton Manning threw three interceptions but it was a Browns' turnover (a fumble recovered by DE Robert Mathis, who went on to score) that was decisive and allowed the Colts win again by coming from behind in the fourth. I thought the Colts would cover the 5-point spread.

Carolina Panthers 35, Green Bay Packers 31: Panthers won in an upset in cold Green Bay in a thrilling game that was close in the second half after the Panthers had first-half leads of 14-3 and 21-10. Green Bay fought back but coughed up the lead by conceding a two-play, 55-yard drive in the final minute that resulted in a DeAngelo Williams game-winning running TD. Thought it would be close but with the home team winning. Can't blame Aaron Rodgers: 29/45, 298 yards, 3 TDs.

Atlanta Falcons 22, San Diego Chargers 16: The Falcons had both a receiver (Roddy White) and a runner (Michael Turner) get at least 112 yards but no Charger had a guy with more than 70 yards of combined offense. On the plus side, at least the Bolts didn't lose it in the final half-minute. I thought the Chargers would win.

Denver Broncos 34, New York Jets 17: This effectively ends the premature talk about the Jets and Giants in the Super Bowl. Lots of offense (867 total net yards between the two teams0 and Denver QB Jay Cutler had a good game (27/43, 357 yards, 2 TDs). I joined nearly all the football pundits in predicting the Jets to cover the 7.5 points at home. Broncs were never behind. Oops.

Pittsburgh Steelers 33, New England Patriots 10: I thought the Steel Curtain would be too much for QB Matt Cassel and that Pittsburgh would pull off the (slight) upset, but I never thought it would be this kind of blowout. The difference was dominating defense: five sacks, two strip sacks, two picks and a recovered fumble. This game is one of the three most exciting of the year so far and evidence that great defense is as fun to watch as great offense. After leading 10-3, Pittsburgh scored 30 unanswered points.

Kansas City Chiefs 20, Oakland Raiders 13: KC blew the game open when CB Maurice Leggett returned a fumble (on an Oakland fake kick play) in the second quarter. Oakland couldn't ever get back into it because of their woeful third down conversion (3 for 13). I thought the Raiders would win.

Minnesota Vikings 34, Chicago Bears 14: Defense was the difference. Minny's defense, led by DE Jared Allen's three sacks, stopped the Bears and picked off Kyle Orton three times after he had more than 200 pass attempts with an interception. Bears defense couldn't stop Minny's RB Adrian Peterson who had nearly as many running yards as Orton did passing. I predicted the Vikes would win.

Houston Texans 30, Jacksonville Jaguars 16: I correctly predicted the Texans would win, but I didn't think it would be as one-sided as it was. Jags were dreadful, demonstrating why they have been a disappointing 4-8, good for last in the AFC South. Jax scored a meaningless TD at 2:11 (it seemed like Houston gave it to them -- they didn't even attempt a tackle on the runner). Houston followed up with their own TD seven second later, followed by another Jax TD with 39 seconds left.
posted by Paul Tuns at 12:01 AM

 
The contradictions of the nanny state

Philip Johnston in the Daily Telegraph on the Labourite plan to ban happy hour and free drinks for women in the United Kingdom:

"Do we have to be led by the hand now with everything we do? A few years ago, Labour strategists were alarmed that they were being branded the nanny state government. They tried to show they considered the country to be grown up by liberalising gambling and licensing laws but they could not then resist interfering again.

Many on the Left scorn the use of the term nanny state as something invoked by the middle classes, who have few of the problems facing poorer people. They argue that the Government should be directing people towards better and healthier lifestyles.

They see it as Parliament's role to save people from their own baser instincts. The term nanny state is credited to the late Bernard Levin, who coined it in the 1980s to express his frustration at what he felt was the erosion of civil liberties disguised as benevolent government.

The finger-wagging in which the current Government indulges is often perplexing. It says that people should not be told how to behave but then seeks to constrain their behaviour with regulation. So, gaming laws are relaxed to allow £1 million slot machine prizes in casinos; but £5 one-armed bandits are to be removed from fish and chip shops. Licensing laws are eased to allow pubs to open all day; but ministers then ban 'happy hours'."

The nanny state is an attempt to control the population, but especially the poor and middle class.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:45 PM

 
The Times and surrogate parenting

Ramesh Ponnuru writes in The Corner about a New York Times Magazine story on surrogate parenthood:

"In a cover story for the New York Times Magazine, Alex Kuczynski wrote about her experience in paying another woman to bear her (and her husband’s) child. It is not a particularly insightful piece—she never even gets around to examining her reasons for rejecting adoption—but the intrinsic interest of the subject matter got me to read it. I’d be more interested in reading a surrogate’s take on these transactions, but I suppose the Times is less likely to have a surrogate than a buyer already on staff."

I understand that surrogate parency is common enough, but what Kuczynski writes still strikes me as odd:

"I did not give birth to my son. He is the product of my egg and my husband’s sperm. After half a decade of trying to become pregnant, sometimes succeeding but always failing to carry a baby successfully to term, I came to the conclusion that if we wanted to have a child who was genetically related to us, we would have to find a woman with a more reliable uterus to gestate and deliver our baby."

Still, go back to Ponnuru's point: Times writers are more likely to buyers than sellers. You'd think that someone at the paper might consider the equality issues raised by surrogacy.
posted by Paul Tuns at 10:35 PM

 
The end of books












James Gleick, a member of the board of the Authors Guild, writes about the an agreement with Google on compensation for writers in the New York Times this past weekend, but he says something much more important about books:

"For some kinds of books, the writing is on the wall. Encyclopedias are finished. All encyclopedias combined, including the redoubtable Britannica, have already been surpassed by the exercise in groupthink known as Wikipedia. Basic dictionaries no longer belong on paper; the greatest, the Oxford English Dictionary, has nimbly remade itself in cyberspace, where it has doubled in size and grown more timely and usable than ever. And those hefty objects called “telephone books”? As antiquated as typewriters. The book has had a long life as the world’s pre-eminent device for the storage and retrieval of knowledge, but that may be ending, where the physical object is concerned."

That is, books -- the content of books, words and ideas -- will survive, even if physical books do not. That is the important point and one so obvious it is stunning that people can't see it. Instead, many have made a fetish out of a nostalgic preference for the tactile paper product. If you care about the words printed on those pages of paper, you should be excited with the Google project to put book content online, rescuing out-of-print books from oblivion.

Here's an idea for InTrade: the year in which the last mass-produced book is printed. I'll go for 2020. Mass-produced will have to be defined and I qualify the prediction as such because my guess is that there will be some books published by specialty outfits and for remarkably small runs.

For the record, I prefer to read my words on dead tree. My wife will tell you about my books and magazines that clutter three different rooms of our house. But it is merely a preference, and a bit of an irrational one at that.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:50 AM

 
This book was already on my Christmas list

How Football Explains America by Sal Paolantonio. Paolantonio is interviewed by John J. Miller at NRO where he explains what football has to do with de Tocqueville and Teddy Roosevelt's contribution to football. From the interview, it sounds like even non-football fans might enjoy the book.
posted by Paul Tuns at 9:38 AM