Sobering Thoughts |
|
|
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.
Archives
|
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Super Bowl prediction Pittsburgh Steelers and Arizona Cardinals at Tampa: Steelers favoured by seven I want to say that Pittsburgh is going to win. I'll be cheering for them on Sunday night, dressed in a 'five-time Super Bowl champions' Steelers t-shirt, maybe even wearing my Steelers gloves and tuque. My eldest son will wear his Steelers shirt and cap, my other son will be swimming in one of my surplus Steelers shirts and if I can convince my wife, she will wear one, too. My wife is quite sensible and probably won't let me paint the faces of our three girls (ages two to six) black and yellow. I'll be ordering a Super Bowl terrible towel minutes after the game if Pittsburgh wins. But I don't expect them to. On paper, this is a great game. The best defense (Pittsburgh) against the second-best offense (Arizona). The Cards offense is pure aerial and the Steelers have the best pass defense. Get the teams on the field and let them play. May the best team win. May the team that does the best at what they do best, win. For most of January, I would have said that Pittsburgh's defense is better than anyone else's offense. Right after the championship games, I would have predicted the Steelers to win, but a close analysis of the matchups and the motivation of the Cards after being disrespected for a full month, including after their NFC Championship win, leads me to the awful conclusion: the Cardinals are going to prevent the Steelers from winning their record sixth Super Bowl. The Cards will win their first. Or maybe I've fallen victim to what Bruce Arthur describes in the National Post today (spending "the last two weeks trying to talk ourselves into picking the Cardinals). Two weeks ago, I would have predicted the incredible Steelers defense to stop Kurt Warner and the army of outstanding receivers the Cards put out there. But not today. Larry Fitzgerald is, as I've said a few times already, the best WR in the game today. He does things no one else can: he has great hands, makes terrific leaps, runs amazing routes, and has tremendous strength and speed. He seems able to contort himself to get his body or the ball to where it needs to go, sometimes in defiance of what is physically possible. His body looks like it will be a yard and a half outside the end zone as he is being triple covered while sprinting the final yards after a deep catch but he stretches out and puts the ball inside the pylon and scores the TD. And not just once, but whenever necessary. If the red zone was a pool of water, no doubt Fitzgerald would glide across it effortlessly as a pair of safeties sink following him. Fitzgerald will be the difference. He makes big plays, he forces double and triple coverage (and still breaks free), and requires opponents to change their game plans. His presence on the field gives Kurt Warner a special target and at the same time draws coverage away from a pair of other incredible wide receivers (Anquan Boldin and Steve Breaston). The problem for the Steelers is that whatever they do to cover Fitzgerald will leave them vulnerable in so many other areas, that the Cards are going to make deep drives, get into Pittsburgh's end zone, and score. The Steelers kept 15 of 18 opponents to under 21 points this year, but Warner is more than capable of consistently leading the long drives and making the big plays that the Steeler defense usually prevents. The Steelers have the best defense in the game this year. It is truly remarkable, something very special, and nine times out of ten -- maybe 19 times out of 20 -- it will get the job done. When the Steelers lose, it usually isn't because the defense let them down. But the Cards are not any old offense. They are probably the most dangerous scoring team in the NFL this year. RB Edgerrin James has emerged as a genuine running threat, running at least 74 yards or scoring a TD in each playoff game thus far. During the regular season, the Cards run offense was ranked worse than that of the Detroit Lions. Now it is an integral part of their game. Arizona has been a different team since the turn of the calender. A defense that already featured five Pro Bowl or Pro Bowl quality players has come alive: safeties Adrian Wilson and Antrel Rolle, linebacker Karlos Dansby, defensive tackler Darnell Dockett and rookie cornerback Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie. One of the storylines of this Super Bowl is a pair of former Steelers coaches facing their old team: head coach Ken Whisenhunt and assistant coach and offensive co-ordinator Russ Grimm. But there is an advantage for the Cards; Whisenhunt and Grimm know the Steelers better than any other NFC opponent could. This is not the same Steelers team that they were part of when it won the Super Bowl three years ago, but there is a surprising amount of talent that remains from their old days in Pittsburgh. And one last thing: no one believes the Cards can win this. Nine of ten Pro Football Weekly staffers picked the Steelers, and while that is extreme it speaks volumes about how most football pundits still don't believe Arizona deserves to be in the Super Bowl after their lackluster 9-7 regular season record, winning a weak NFC West. Apparently beating three superior playoff teams -- the Atlanta Falcons, Carolina Panthers and Philadelphia Eagles -- doesn't count for anything. Nothing. Nada. Last year few people gave the hot team, the New York Giants, any chance of beating a clearly superior (and perfect) New England team. We all remember who went home with the Lombardi Trophy. That kind of disrespect -- and that's the word some Cardinals are using -- is precisely the kind of thing that rally a team. The Steelers are the better team, but wheareas great defense and strong running can win the Super Bowl, it is just as often that the team with a player that has the greatest performance is the one who wins. That's why I'm picking the Cards. The Steelers are the better team, but Warner to Fitzgerald is the better play-making machine. The Steelers will try to control the pace of the game by utilizing a running game to keep Warner and Fitzgerald off the field, but if the Cards score early or are ahead, Pittsburgh will be forced to the air, which is not what they will want to do. There is a path to victory for the Steelers: their pass rush on Warner forces errors, their defense stops the Cards running game turning Arizona's offense into a predictable one-dimensional threat, and Big Ben exercises the demons of the Super Bowl three years ago and comes up with a few big plays. But I don't see that as likely to happen, although OLBs James Harrison and LaMarr Woodley should be able to get to Warner a number of times; Warner sometimes reacts poorly to pressure, but I would guess the former Super Bowl MVP will not be easily thrown off his game on Sunday. Or Pittsburgh wins if Troy Polamalu makes a big interception and returns or nearly returns it for score. As good as Polamalu is, that's just not a safe thing to bet on. It breaks my heart to say this: Cards win 27-17. I hope I'm wrong and Rush Limbaugh is right. Really disgusting Super Bowl menu Wired suggests olive chips, puree bratwurst, puffed sauerkraut and beer ice cream. Give me 'boring' wings, nachos and regular bratwurst. Really, does this look like Super Bowl food? It looks a little pansified to me.  The president's guest list for his Super Bowl party It's boring. Here's the list as reported by the Washington Post: From Pennsylvania: Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) Congressman Charlie Dent (R-PA) Congressman Mike Doyle (D-PA) Congressman Patrick Murphy (D-PA) From Arizona: Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) The rest: Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-MD) Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes-Norton (D-DC) Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) Congressman Artur Davis (D-AL) Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) Congressman Paul Hodes (D-NH) Congressman Fred Upton (R-MI) He's the president; can't he do better than this? Friday, January 30, 2009
Cool things on YouTube -- Mean Joe Greene edition Classic 1979 Coca Cola ad featuring great Pittsburgh Steelers defensive tackle Mean Joe Greene Sesame Street parody of Greene's Coke ad Just a thought Tyler Cowen examines a new paper on whether conservatives are happier than liberals (the study concludes yes) and he concludes with this possible explanation: "[P]eople have a certain amount of unhappiness in them and they channel their political discontents to fill that unhappiness." Think what you will of Islam or Geert Wilders but Buruma is right Ian Buruma in the New York Times: "[F]or a man who calls for a ban on the Koran to act as the champion of free speech is a bit rich." The folly of just doing anything -- and everything Mark Thoma writes in an Economist symposium on the Olivier Blanchard (an IMF economist) essay on fear and the economic turmoil. Thoma points to the problem with the political 'stimulus' solution of doing everything when the politicians (and the bankers) don't know anything: "But I do worry that a portfolio approach to policy will undermine confidence instead of building it. If my health is deteriorating and my doctor does test after test, sends me to specialists, yet still isn't quite sure what is wrong, and if the result is a broad-spectrum, let's-try-a-variety-of-things-and-hope-something-works approach, I don't think it would cause my confidence in my doctor or the medical profession to increase. And if my recovery depends on my believing that this approach will work, then it's not likely that such a remedy will be very effective." Or, as Tyler Cowen says in the same symposium: "Most generally, we all need to keep in mind that trying to restore public confidence is tricky." A placebo -- the government appearing to provide a fix for the economy -- might work. But it might not. A trillion here, a trillion there Larry Kudlow says that spending on the Troubled Asset Relief Program is getting out of control: "[N]ews reports suggest that Team Obama is contemplating as much as $2 trillion in TARP additions to rescue the banking system in one form or another. That would be $2 trillion on top of the nearly $1 trillion stimulus package." The New York Times reported that Senator Charles Schumer (D, NY) says it may take $3 trillion to $4 trillion to buy the bad assets. Frightening stuff. George Will suggests a strategy for the Republicans: "The opposition should oppose mere opportunism, which comes in two forms. One is presenting pet projects hitherto considered unworthy of funding as suddenly meritorious because somehow stimulative. The other attaches major and non-germane policy changes to the stimulus legislation, counting on the need for speed to allow them to escape appropriate scrutiny." That would mean stopping almost all so-called 'stimulus'. Thursday, January 29, 2009
The irresponsible budget  I disagree with Andrew Coyne that the federal budget is the end of (fiscal) conservatism: conservatism is dormant, just hibernating. As Charles Murray told the Cato Institute last month, libertarians will be around to say "I told you so" but it will take some time. Eventually the country will catch on that this is fiscal madness. That is not to say that the budget is not profoundly irresponsible. Nearly $90 billion in new debt over the next five years. I don't understand why, if the Finance Department says that the recession will be over by this coming fall, we need deficit spending to stimulate the economy in 2010. I am worried that this won't be the end of Ottawa's spending. On budget day, Jim Flaherty told reporters that if this budget doesn't stimulate the economy, the government is willing to do more. Yikes. More? There is even reason to believe that it won't work because, as Terence Corcoran notes in the Financial Post, economic models on which a lot of Flaherty's assumptions are predicated are unreliable. And it can't be good when Floyd Laughren, Bob Rae's former finance minister, gives the thumbs up to a Conservative budget in Ottawa: "It's on the right track." (HT: Gerry Nicholls) The spending is out of control and the tax 'cuts' insufficient: a 10% increase in spending; an extra five weeks of EI that will be impossible to rescind when the economy turns around for the better; $12 billion over two years for 'stimulus' even though the recession is predicted to be over in nine months; the creation of a new regional development agency (for southwestern Ontario); billions for forestry and manufacturing; spending a record $6500 inflation-adjusted dollars per Canadian -- 50% more than the Chretien government spent near the end of its tenure; modest 'tax cuts' that are nothing more than fiddling with the thresholds and raising the basic personal income exemption. As Coyne says, the budget is a "monumental, even reckless gamble." Aside from the cynical politics, this is offensive because a Keynesian fix is not what the Canadian economy needs; the layering of new spending, which will be difficult to reverse, and the destruction of the psychological barrier to deficit spending, will cause further damage to the Canadian economy, saddling future generations with higher debt repayments and larger government. Considering the damage done to the country, all to preserve the Tories' hold on power, it has become irresponsible for a conservative to continue supporting the Conservative Party, the Conservative government and Stephen Harper. (Photo: Rick Mercer Report Photo Challenge) The war against European groceries The Washington Post reports on the pushback by the French makers of Roquefort, a stinky sheep-milk cheese, against massive, last-minute Bush administration tariffs against their product. Other European 'luxury' goods that will face a 300% tariff include "among other things, French truffles, Irish oatmeal, Italian sparkling water and 'fatty livers of ducks and geese,' which apparently is how Washington trade bureaucrats say foie gras." That said, the ewe-raising producers of Roquefort are hardly free-marketeers: "However Roquefort got its start, the people of this village have been making it for a long time. They were granted a monopoly on producing the cheese by King Charles VI in 1411. In 1666, the parliament in Toulouse granted Roquefort a 'controlled designation of origin,' which made it illegal for other communities to claim they were producing it. A decree from the prime minister in 2001 reviewed in excruciating detail how Roquefort must be produced to retain its distinction, including boundaries for the ewes' grazing grounds." Sam Walton vs. FDR vs. Gandhi Art Carden, an assistant professor of economics at Rhodes College and a blogger at Division of Labour, reports on an experiment he did with his students: "I did a thought experiment with some of my students after class yesterday that, I think, illustrates the importance of the economic way of thinking. Imagine the following three pairs of people: 1. LBJ and FDR 2. Bill Gates and Sam Walton 3. Mother Teresa and Gandhi Now identify which pair people would classify as heroes, which pair people would classify as saints, and which pair people would classify as villains. As one might expect, LBJ and FDR are perceived as heroes, Gates and Walton are perceived as villains, and Mother Teresa and Gandhi are perceived as saints. I then asked them to rank the group in order of the degree to which they have alleviated genuine human suffering. The students anticipated where I was going with this: I think Gates and Walton are the runaway winners, followed by Mother Teresa and Gandhi. If Robert Higgs is correct, LBJ and FDR have actually created human suffering instead of alleviating it." Great lesson. He also shows that it is never to early to teach children about capitalism. Sign of the times Justin Wolfers at Freakonomics: "The latest recession indicator: more people are searching Google for 'coupons' than for 'Britney Spears.' And it’s not that Britney is getting less popular. By this measure, the recession began in March 2008." If Britney searches were becoming less popular I would have posed a question: is this a good or bad thing? Give and you will receive Adam Frucci at Gizmodo reports: "Monty Python started a YouTube channel with tons of their sketches streaming for free. The included links to their DVDs at Amazon. The result was a whopping 23,000% increase in sales." As Frucci notes: "Are you paying attention, MPAA and RIAA? A controlled release of free material keeps people from resorting to piracy and keeps them in your controlled ecosphere, which can include, yes, ways for fans to give you money. But when you're a bunch of pricks, people go to The Pirate Bay and think of you as the enemy, and then you don't get any money." (HT: Freakonomics) Wednesday, January 28, 2009
What's wrong with Candy Land  Steven Johnson, guest blogging at Boing Boing: "There’s a consistent theme to all these old-school game [Sorry, Bingo, Go Fish, Candy Land] introductions: almost without exception, I have been mortified by the pathetic game that I’ve excitedly brought to the kids. Not because they’re made out of cardboard and plastic, instead of 1080p HDMI graphics. (My boys still spend just as many happy hours with Lego as they do the PS3.) What’s irritating about the games is that they are exercises in sheer randomness. It’s not that they fail to sharpen any useful skills; it’s that they make it literally impossible for a player to acquire any skills at all. Take Battleship. I spend thirty minutes setting up the game, explaining the dual grids and how one represents their fleet, and the other represents their opponents’. I have to explain the pegs, and the x/y coordinates of the grid, and the placement of the ships themselves. And then when we’re finally ready to go, I explain how the actual game is played. “So pick a random point on the grid,” I explain, “and see if he’s got a ship there.” I hadn’t thought about this until I actually played the game again last week, but there is absolutely nothing about the initial exploratory sequence of Battleship that requires anything resembling a genuine decision. It is a roulette wheel. A random number generator could easily stay competitive for the first half. But even when some red pegs appear on the board, the decision tree is still a joke: “Now select a co-ordinate that’s next to the red peg.” That’s pretty much it. Yes, at the very end, you might adjust your picks based on your knowledge of which ships you’ve sunk. But for the most part, it’s about as mentally challenging as playing Bingo. And Battleship might as well be Battleship Potemkin compared to something like Candy Land, which was fiendishly designed to prevent the player from ever having to make a single decision while playing the game. You pick a card from a shuffled deck, and follow the instructions. That’s it. I realize that games of pure chance have a long history, but that doesn’t make them any less moronic. (And it goes without saying that Checkers, Chess, Go, and other strategy games are great tests of decision-making.) I take this as another example of how much more mentally challenging kids’ culture has become in recent years. The digital generation doesn’t seem to have much of an appetite for games structured around total randomness. My older boys have been playing Super Mario Galaxy for the Wii since they were four and six, and there is more decision making in ten seconds of that game than there is in ten hours of Candy Land or Sorry. Just as a thought experiment: Imagine what the manual for Super Mario would read like were it structured like Candy Land: To explore Super Mario Galaxy, just hit the “action” button. At that point the game will randomly determine what action you have selected, and whether it was successful. When the action is over, hit the button again to see what’s next! You think that game would have been a runaway hit? Even dressed up with accelerometers and adorable graphics? Of course not. But that’s what most of us who grew up before videogames accepted as normal when we were five. I’m not big into the “moral message” interpretation of pop culture, but plenty of critics of digital games are, so just for the record: what sort of message does Candy Land send to our kids? (And I’m not just talking about all the implicit advertisements for cane sugar products.) It says you are powerless, that your destiny is entirely determined by the luck of the draw, that the only chance you have of winning the game lies in following the rules, and accepting the cards as they come. Who wants to grow up in that kind of universe?" US stimulus will still fund family planning & STD prevention LifeSiteNews.com reports: "Just one day after millions of dollars in contraception and abortion handouts in Obama's nearly $1 trillion economic stimulus package were made public and immediately discarded, news has come to light of another $335 million set aside for condoms and sexually explicit 'STD prevention' programs. The Drudge Report headlined the discovery of another chunk of stimulus money headed primarily for promoting sexually-transmitted disease (STD) prevention programs, via the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)." So, to be clear(ish): the old condom and abortion funding is out, but other old condom and sex-ed funding is still in. Tuesday, January 27, 2009
What I'm reading - budget edition 1. Canada's Economic Plan: Budget 2009 2. Analysis of the budget from TD Economics, ScotiaBank, BMO Nesbitt Burns, and KPMG. 3. Also, analysis from the Fraser Institute and Cardus (formerly the Work Research Foundation). Pro-Israel vote at UN may come back to haunt Canada That should reflect the UN worse than it does Canada. The story is in Embassy magazine. It's Canada's turn for a UPR -- a Universal Periodic Review -- that is one of the hallmarks of the UN Human Rights Council, which replaced the dysfunctional UN Human Rights Commission. Every four years, every country's human record is scrutinized by the UNHRC. Embassy reports: "Islamic nations and those belonging to the Non-Aligned Movement, primarily comprised of southern and developing countries, have been responsible for bringing the motions. European countries and others have generally abstained, while Canada has emerged as a pariah by steadfastly opposing the motions. The most recent example was on Jan. 12 when Canada was alone in opposing a motion condemning the 'grave' human rights violations allegedly perpetrated by Israeli military forces in Gaza. Mr. Machon said Canada's support for Israel, as well as its strong stands on Darfur and against Burma and Iran, have netted it many enemies." Let me translate: because Canada is standing up for human rights in various developing countries, other developing countries are going to get back at Canada. 'Why Are Faxes Still Around?' Wired asks and answers, and concludes that most recipients of documents: "almost certainly has a fax number, it's probably listed, and his machine can receive a transmission from any source—a brand-new multitasking office bot or a 25-year-old thermal-paper fountain. This universal utility is the technology's competitive edge. Faxing is easy." Still seems wierd. I learned, though, that the first faxing technology was patented in 1843. Congress may back down on family planning as part of stimulus LifeSiteNews.com report here. Give a liberal enough rope and they'll take care of everything themselves. If Nancy Pelosi hadn't made the liberal case for including family planning as part of the stimulus project, no one would have cared. Demographic winter Don Feder was the speaker at the Rose Dinner on January 23, the 36th anniversay of Roe v. Wade. Here is the text of his speech on Demographic Winter, the idea that declining population growth and eventually depopulation, endangers our future. An excerpt: [W]hat happens when populations begin to decline? We’ve built a civilization that depends on people – and lots of them. What happens when more and more becomes less and less? Demographic Winter is the terminal stage in the suicide of the West –the culmination of a century of evil ideas and poisonous policies. Among them: • Abortion – As I mentioned a moment ago, worldwide, we’re killing 42 million people a year. It’s as if an invading army killed every man woman and child in Italy – then repeated the process every year. • Contraception – For the first time in history, just under half the world’s population of childbearing age uses some form of birth control. Some of us remember when births weren’t controlled and pregnancies weren’t planned. With all of wailing about man-made Global Warming, carbon footprints and the ozone layer, wouldn’t it be ironic if what did us in wasn’t the SUV but the IUD? • Delayed marriage. People are marrying later and later After 35, it becomes progressively harder for a woman to have children. • The decline of marriage and the rise of cohabitation. Not surprisingly, in relationships without commitment, people have fewer children. By the way, the left’s contribution to the coming population crisis is to push the one type of “marriage” (and I use the term advisedly) that can’t conceivably produce children. • But perhaps the most important factor is a culture (including Hollywood, the news media and academia) that tells people that children are a burden, rather than a joy; that pushes an ego-driven, live-for-the-moment ethic; a culture that tells us that contentment comes from careers, love, friendship, pets, possessions, travel, personal growth – anything and everything except family and children. It’s a culture that can look at Sarah Palin and her beautiful family and ask why she had to have 5 children and why she didn’t abort her child with Downs Syndrome? AGS revisited  Pittsburgh Steelers 23, Baltimore Ravens 14: I not only correctly predicted that the Steelers would win, but that they'd beat the six-point spread. To be fair to the Steelers, who really dominated the game, it was never really as close as the even the nine-point differential indicates it might have been -- or the media reports on how smash-mouth it was would have it. On offense, the Steelers made 38% of third downs (7/18) compared to 23% (3/13) for the Ravens; their average gain per passing play was more than 50% better (6 yards to 3.8). Pittsburgh's defense was vastly superior, and although the Ravens defense was not apparently affected by its recent wear and tear, everyone on the Steeler D-line and their safeties, all stepped up their game. They limited the Ravens to less than 200 yards of offense, sacked the QB four times, and forced four turnovers. Joe Flacco remained as cool as he has been all playoffs but this time he couldn't get the job done: only 13 passes on 30 attempts, 141 passing yards, no TDs and three picks. The Ravens had three turnovers in the final five minutes of the game, including a beautiful interception by safety Troy Polamalu that was returned for a TD. On a key fourth-and-one, Flacco was stopped on a QB sneak when Polamalu flew over the line of scrimmage to grab the rookie and prevent him from moving forward. The Steelers offense lost their big, play-making WR Hines Ward in the first quarter and no one ran for more than 47 yards or caught for more than 60, but Pittsburgh was tremendously efficient and made three big plays for 30 yards or more, including a 65-yard reception for score by WR Santonio Holmes. The game was brutally rough, with three Ravens leaving and staying out of the game, including RB Willie McGahee who was carted off the field after a legal but vicious tackle by Ryan Clark. Steelers needed the extra week's rest after earning the victory nine days ago. Arizona Cardinals 32, Philadelphia Eagles 25: I correctly predicted that the Cards would get the upset. Every part of the Cards team played well, but none better than WR Larry Fitzgerald, who had 9 catches for 152 yards and 3 TDs. QB Kurt Warner was almost as good: 21 passes on 28 attempts for 279 yards, 4 TDs, no interceptions. RB Edgerrin James established the running game early, with back-to-back runs for first downs. Once the Cards showed the Eagles they could run the ball, Philly was forced to spread their D and not double and triple team Fitzgerald like they needed to. The Eagles got back into the game, scoring 19 points to overcome a 24-6 half-time deficit and take a 25-24 lead at the beginning of the fourth. But the Cards scored with less than three minutes left after Warner led an eight minute, 14-play, 72-yard drive; they went for (and got) the two point conversion, rather than the extra point kick. Philly led in time of possession, had a healthy 454-369 lead in total net yards and was better at making third downs. But the Cards were a perfect three for three in the red zone. Philly's defense had great moments but couldn't maintain it for all 60 minutes. They only put the blitz on in the second half and sacked Warner only twice. QB Donovan McNabb led a few great drives but his numbers were nothing special: 28/47, 375 yards, 3 TDs, 1 pick. Kicker David Ackers broke a streak of 19 consecutive field goals when he missed a 47-yard attempt in the first half. RB Brian Westbrook had just 71 combined yards. Cards won on inspired play by some of its offensive leaders and solid efforts everywhere else. While some pundits are down on Arizona because of its mediocre 9-7 record, they have been phenomenal in the playoffs, looking not merely rejuvenated but completely new. The Steelers will have their hands full in Tampa next Sunday. Back to the Future: Budget day 2009 Conservative Party returns to its Brian Mulroney pedigree with a spend-happy budget. As Joseph Ben-Ami states: "So now, finally, all is revealed. It seems that the critiques were right after all; the federal Conservatives under the leadership of Stephen Harper really did have a “hidden” agenda – just not the one everyone thought. Instead of being the committed conservatives that some people feared, but that just as many people hoped for, it turns out that the Harper Conservatives were actually big-borrowing, big-spending liberals in the style of Brian Mulroney and Joe Clark." What a horrible day to be a conservative. Two quotes from the Toronto Star yesterday. Gerry Nicholls, former National Citizens Coalition vice president: "Absolutely he has abandoned his principles ... I don't even recognize this person who is the Prime Minister of Canada ... [Harper] was a principled small-c conservative who believed that ... conservative politicians should stick by their principles ... I think he began to care more about public-opinion polls than his principles." University of Calgary political science professor and former Harper confidant Tom Flanagan: "[Harper] lost the initiative by provoking the other parties into this potential coalition against him ... and now he finds himself having to put together a budget which is really a coalition budget ... the government's hand is fairly weak right now." It isn't good enough that Harper says the deficits will only be temporary. And I don't buy the line from Conservatives that the Liberals would be worse. The Liberals couldn't get away with a deficit in excess of $30 billion because they would fear the Tories siphoning votes from the right; but today's burgeoning deficits will make it easier for the Liberals to grow government more, with even larger deficits in the future, having broken the psychological barrier to (large) deficits now. Monday, January 26, 2009
Democrat stimulus package Fewer people. The Daily Telegraph reports: "The Democratic leader defended plans in the government's $825 billion (£600 billion) economic stimulus package to reimburse states for contraceptives and other family planning services given out as part of the Medicaid programme for people who cannot afford health insurance. Mrs Pelosi said that 'contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.' Mrs Pelosi, the mother of five children and grandmother to six, did not spell out exactly how fewer babies would help the economy. But she told ABC television: 'The family planning services reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs'." As Catholic League president Bill Donohue said (according to a LifeSiteNews.com report): "Now we have Pelosi arguing that the way to balance the budget is not by cutting expenditures, but by cutting kids. We have reached a new low when high-ranking public office holders in the federal government cast children as the enemy." From James Pethokoukis' U.S. News and World Report blog: "This is wrong on so many levels, one of which is looking at children born to the 'wrong people' as economic burdens rather gifts, the music makers, the dreamers of dreams. She sees them as a cost instead of blessed benefits." In need of a better Jindal Quin Hillyer at the AmSpec blog points to C.B. Forgotston who says that Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's actions don't match his conservative rhetoric. Says Hillyer: "So conservatives must hold Jindal's feet to the fire. For our sake, and for his. His potential is almost limitless. His performance needs to stop lagging behind." The inevitability of failure From Thomas Friedman in the New York Times: "So, just to recap: It’s five to midnight and before the clock strikes 12 all we need to do is rebuild Fatah, merge it with Hamas, elect an Israeli government that can freeze settlements, court Syria and engage Iran — while preventing it from going nuclear — just so we can get the parties to start talking. Whoever lines up all the pieces of this diplomatic Rubik’s Cube deserves two Nobel Prizes." Interesting anecdote/joke Here is an anecdote reported in a New York Times story on Barack Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, although I'm not sure it means anything, but it is interesting: "At a White House gathering with Mr. Obama and a bipartisan team of lawmakers on Friday, the House majority leader, Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, joked that Mr. Emanuel was too busy to talk to him, so he called the president instead. Mr. Obama said he was always happy to take calls for his chief of staff — a reference to an incident a few weeks ago when Mr. Hoyer called Mr. Emanuel, who was in the back of a car and claimed he was too busy to talk, so he handed the phone to Mr. Obama." I also liked this part of the profile on Obama's #2: "When Mr. Emanuel lost part of his middle finger while cutting meat at an Arby’s as a teenager, Mr. Obama joked, the accident 'rendered him practically mute'." This strikes me as true in theory but not in practice Tyler Cowen: "The total population of terrorists ebbs and flows all the time. When the number goes up by one hundred, no one much notices. If the number goes up by one hundred because we release some previously identified terrorists, there is or will be a public outcry. But it's the same consequence. Fewer terrorists are better than more terrorists, to be sure. But a terrorist we release is not obviously worse than a terrorist who was free in the first place. We evaluate outcomes differently when we feel we are in control or should be in control. We should examine this intuition carefully, since it is not always justified. We also treat an outcome differently when we feel it allows an enemy of ours to 'get back at us.' I suspect this difference in feeling is not usually justified and that it is the primary driver behind the fear of releasing terrorists. I can think of 'political theater' reasons why an attack from a released terrorist would be worse than an attack from an 'already free' terrorist. Overall I do not yet feel that we are thinking about this issue rationally." There is also the question of whether terrorists should be set free as a question of just desserts (getting what they deserve) and not just public safety that is being ignored. January Interim is up The whole issue is here. Notable stories: The cover story on our first-ever Person of the Year, Ezra Levant is here. There is Kathy Shaidle's story, Mark Steyn's appreciation of his fellow freedom fighter and my Q&A with Levant. Our lead editorial is about the fight against the human rights commission industry. Our second editorial is about the attempt by the University of Calgary to censor pro-life students. Our news coverage of the UofC bullies is here. My story on visiting the Holy Land, with lots of pictures. Rebecca Walberg's review of Elizabeth Fox-Genovese's Marriage: The Dream That Refuses to Die. Rory Leishman's column on abortion and the medical profession. Our top stories of 2008. Reaching out to new voters by shutting out existing ones That is essentially what most attempts to modernize conservative parties do. I'll have more about NewMajority.com's new-fangled view of a faddish conservatism sometime soon, but for now consider Jonas Stankovich's post on how to attract the 'youth' vote: "The Republicans lost much of the youth by not offering the 21st change on social issues. Let’s show young people that Republicans are in sync with their modern world by leading the charge for gay rights and equality for all. We can compete for their votes again by showing them that we are a party of small government instead of a party of small minds." Do youth -- who barely vote, by the way -- decide who they'll pull the lever for based on the single issue of gay rights? I don't think so, although I'd be willing to hear arguments about gay rights being a proxy for other 'progressive' positions youth care about. And I find it amusing how quickly being 'tolerant' of gays becomes "leading the charge for gay rights." The Republican base, for better or worse, is not the under 35 crowd but older voters who do, in fact, hold more traditional views on moral issues like gay rights. How does the Republican Party get ahead by attempting to attract potential youth voters while actively pushing away actual conservative voters? Sunday, January 25, 2009
Pro-abortion media? Yes, but not quite as bad as you think Fr. Jonathan Morris, a "Fox News religion contributor," writes about the media' non-coverage of the March for Life in Washington and says that it might not be an ideological pro-abortion bias but a combination of economic interests and media priorities. He says: "1) We must keep in mind the media doesn’t like anniversaries because anniversaries, by definition, are not news (whatever is being remembered, already happened). 2) Annual events, like the March for Life, have a similar obstacle to overcome. In television, 'annual' is synonymous with 'nothing new'. 3) Getting bigger numbers each year to an annual event is not enough to change this fact. First time events, if they are big enough, and events that change the game may be considered newsworthy. 4) Even if abortion is a 'hot' topic, the debate is not media friendly... 5) If we are going to advance a serious conversation about how to limit abortions ... there is a need for a smarter media strategy. Don’t you think the Roe v. Wade anniversary would have made news if every pro-life congressman and senator would have walked out of his or her offices and marked the moment with a giant press conference in front of the Supreme Court? Would it not have made news if hundreds of pro-life black pastors were to have issued a request to meet with President Obama to talk about the genocide of the black population... 6) This media strategy should highlight scientific dialogue about the biological status of the human embryo." I disagree with the statement "the mighty dollar almost always trumps ideology." Not true of media and not true of most things. If it were, we'd lie, cheat and steal even more; if media owners cared more about money, they wouldn't get into the newspaper and broadcast business, or at least they wouldn't cover politics. But I digress from his more important points. I would also add that not every bias is a form of ideological bias. Often what seems like an ideological bias can be attributed to ignorance, journalistic laziness or (relatedly) the herd mentality. But there is something soothing to the pro-life side to blame the enemy and wrap themselves in the cloth of victimhood at the hands of all-powerful pro-abortion journalists. I also agree that 'annual' events and 'anniversaries' are not news, and that just because something (a march for life or other annual demonstration) is 'bigger' is no reason to cover something the media didn't cover last year. I think niche publications might be different because they exist to cover what the media ignores. But the challenge for them is to cover it in new and interesting ways that respect a certain journalistic integrity. I'm totally on board with Fr. Morris that pro-lifers need to find a better media strategy, especially by creating events that are newsworthy. I like some of the ones he suggested (the ones I kept in the post) and not others (see his Fox News column for what I omitted). I don't really agree with the need to highlight scientific facts about the fetus; most people know the unborn are human beings. They just don't care. The argument isn't over the biological facts but philosophy: who deserves legal protection. The only people I ever hear say the fetus is just a clump of cells are pro-lifers when they refute an argument the pro-abortion side hasn't used in 20 years. Two decades of widespread ultra sounds has changed the debate. I'd add one point: pro-lifers think the gravity of abortion warrants the breaking of normal media rules. Sure the March for Life is annual, but it marks the killing of human babies -- why doesn't the media cover it? Problem is, not everyone recognizes the situation for what it is and pro-life complaining is not going to change that. This is not to say that a lot of journalists aren't biased and that there isn't a detrimental effect to our side because of that. Television and print news is far from perfect but ideological bias is not the only obstacle pro-lifers face when they are ignored by the media. Why wholesale reform won't work A few weeks back, The Economist magazine joined the chorus of pundits calling for comprehensive and simultaneous reform of Social Security, the health care system and the tax code. The thinking is that 1) they are inextricably linked anyway and 2) the politics of hurting everyone a little makes it more likely to reform entitlements than if one constituency was bearing most of the burden. This so-called Grand Bargain is nice in theory, but in practice it is not likely to happen. As George Will explains in the Washington Post today: "The theory of a grand bargain is that if every American faction is being nicked simultaneously -- if tax increases and benefit cuts ('cuts' understood, perhaps, as disappointing increases) make everyone surly at the same time -- there will be unity born of universal grievance, which will morph into a public-spirited consensus. Perhaps. On the other hand, George Kennan, diplomat and historian, said that the unlikelihood of any negotiation reaching an agreement grows by the square of the number of parties involved." Murphy v. Obama Globe and Mail columnist Rex Murphy praises Barack Obama's speech-giving abilities, but criticizes the inaugural address: "Barack Obama could read a string of fortune cookie messages and some people would come away thinking they'd heard the Gettysburg address. He gave a great performance Tuesday. The speech itself, however, was a dud. So much skill operating on so lifeless a text. It was Vladimir Horowitz playing Chopsticks. A speech that has hardly begun gives us clouds that are 'gathering,' storms that are 'raging,' a fear that is 'nagging,' grievances that are petty, interests that are 'narrow' and decisions that are 'unpleasant' displays an alarming hospitality to cliché. Is there a dull-adjective shop in the new White House? If they carve this one in marble, the appropriate subscript will read: Bring me your poor, your tired, your hackneyed phrases - your obvious descriptors yearning to be twee. It contains sentences that begin as merely flat but end in perfect banality: 'Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans.' How many times have you heard that sad rhetorical turn? And where the sentence should deliver its punch, in comes the pale tepid verbal paint of 'too many big plans'." Read the whole column. McGuinty takes sides (with the administration) in York U strike The Globe and Mail reports: "The Ontario government will recall the legislature Sunday to introduce legislation that would end the 11-week strike by contract faculty and teaching assistants at York University. But a speedy end to the dispute will not happen because of opposition from the New Democratic Party." Officials and students at York are happy with the imposition of binding arbitration, although the union is understandably miffed. I'm on the union's side on this one. I'm just wondering what the compelling case for state intervention is? The provincial government is giving the administration what it wants but at the cost of undermining collective bargaining. I'm no fan of collective bargaining, but if we have, we have it and the state is wrong to violate that. The province ordering the striking part-time faculty and teaching assistants raises some important questions about whether a university (or a specific university) is an essential service? (I'd answer no.) That is not to diminish the anguish of students, especially foreign students who have not been allowed to work off-campus, and those who graduate this year (assuming they can) who will face employers skeptical about the value of their diploma. But I still want to know, what has changed this week from last, other than the passing of seven days? Saturday, January 24, 2009
Four and down 4. Pro Football Weekly reports that the New York Giants are interested in Chad Ocho Cinco "at the right price." I don't know if the G-Men need a player who 1) provides the drama that the former Chad Johnson does and 2) seems to have suffered a sudden departure of skills. Normally I wouldn't have a problem with a team taking a problem player, but 1) New York would seem to be a bad place for such a player and 2) Ocho Cinco seems to be in steep decline. 3. Cold Hard Football Facts says; that the 2008 Pittsburgh Steelers' defense compares fairly favourably with the defensive powerhouses Pittsburgh put on the field in the 1970s -- except in one are: points scored per game. However, as CHFF points out, the game has changed in significant ways (especially the kicking game) which affect scoring and in this statistical area, the '08 squad at a disadvantage. The exception is the freakishless good 1976 Steelers that allowed fewer than ten points per game. 2. Vinnie Iyer has an interesting article over at tsn.com (The Sporting News) about how the 2004 draft is key to the post-season success of both Super Bowl contenders. The Steelers drafted QB Ben Roethlisberger and the Arizona Cardinals drafted WR Larry Fitzgerald (among others). You could probably write a column like this for most teams that match up in the Super Bowl -- it makes sense that the top draft pick four or five years ago would be a big contributor to a successful team -- but those are two big pieces for the offense of each team next Sunday in Tampa. 1. I like it when teams think big, but only when they do it realistically. I'm not sure new Kansas City Chief general manager Scott Pioli (formerly of the New England Patriots) is being realistic when he fired interim head coach Herm Edwards (good move) and is said to be interested; in former Denver Broncos head coach Mike Shanahan. Shanahan will get paid a lot of money if he doesn't coach in 2009 (about $8 million) and might want to take the year off before heading back behind the motorola headset. But he does have 15 years experience in the AFL West and KC is a great football town. Great move he Pioli can pull it off. Three and out 3. Bill Price blogs about sports for the Daily News and he doesn't think Jeff Kent is worthy of Hall of Fame consideration. He says that because everyone but catchers are putting up gaudy offensive numbers, Hall of Fame voters shouldn't take position into account when judging a player's Hall worthiness. I don't buy that at all. Some shortstops are putting up huge numbers (Hanley Ramirez) as are some second basemen (HanRam's team-mate Dan Uggla and Chase Utley), but they are still exceptional. Corner infielders and corner outfielders still out-homer middle infielders by a wide margin even if the margin is decreasing compared to the 1950s or even 1970s. I do agree, however, with Price when he says that Kent is not bound for Cooperstown, but I think it is because the Baseball Writers of America Association is likely to make a mistake rather than the idea that Kent is undeserving of the honour. 2. HardBallTimes.com has a list of the best outfield arms in baseball today. The New York Yankees will get a slight upgrade by not using Bobby Abreu in rightfield (now that he is gone via free agency) but will be hurt by having to use Johnny Damon for any substantial period of time. I was a bit surprised to see Grady Sizemore of the Cleveland Indians listed as the worst centerfielder in baseball. He may not be great, but I didn't think he'd rate as the worst. 1. Apparently Toronto Blue Jays general manager J.P. Ricciardi might not be incompetent about personnel decisions, but rather incompetent in his how he approaches personnel. John Brattain writes about how the organization is a "Selig loyalist"; that is they are given to MLB commissioner Bud Selig's vision of not paying players what they are worth, much to the detriment of the team's success -- and of Jays fans. Not that Selig is necessarily and consciously anti-player, but he has the wrong economic view of players. As Brattain says, "To be a Selig loyalist one must view players as an expense (something to keep to a minimum) rather than an investment (a vehicle that can be used to increase profits)." One half of Bush's legacy (big government) hurts the other half (defender of America) The war hawks who support George W. Bush should remember what Nick Gillespie writes at the Wall Street Journal because our ambiguity that results in mostly a free pass due to an appreciation for preventing further terrorist attacks is a bit too much ambiguous. Gillespie: "In a way that was inconceivable when he took office, Mr. Bush -- the advance man for the "ownership society," smaller and more trustworthy government, and a humble foreign policy -- increased the size and scope of the federal government to unprecedented levels. At the same time, he constantly flashed signs of secrecy, duplicity, ineffectiveness and outright incompetence. Think for a moment about the thousands of Transportation Security Administration screeners -- newly minted government employees all -- who continue to confiscate contact-lens solution and nail clippers while, according to nearly every field test, somehow failing to notice simulated bombs in passenger luggage. Or schoolchildren struggling under No Child Left Behind, which federalized K-12 education to an unprecedented degree with nothing to show for it other than greater spending tabs. Or the bizarrely structured Medicare prescription-drug benefit, the largest entitlement program created since LBJ. Or the simple reality that taxpayers now guarantee some $8 trillion in inscrutable loans to a financial sector that collapsed from inscrutable loans. Such programs were not in any way foisted on Mr. Bush, the way that welfare reform had been on Bill Clinton; they were signature projects, designed to create a legacy every bit as monumental and inspiring as Laura Bush's global literacy campaign." Mark Steyn has often written that the European-style welfare state destroys the type of character needed to fight winning wars, such as a civilizational battle between the West and Islam. Bush has brought America closer to the regulation/welfare state that is destroying Europe, so in the long run America will going to be be less capable (because less willing) to fight for its principles of liberty and rule of law. Presidential words This feature at the New York Times allows you to see how often each president used certain words in their inauguration address (just put the cursor over the president's picture). Interestingly, that since Lincoln's inauguration, the presidents who used the word 'government' most often are mostly Republican (the exception being Woodrow Wilson's first inaugural, although he didn't use it once in his second), with Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Ronald Reagan and William Howard Taft having mentioning 'government' the most. Only a few times (Coolidge and Reagan) was it uttered to talk about its limits. On the flip side, Republicans also tend to use 'free' and 'freedom' more often. Cool things on YouTube Nigel Kennedy and Juliet Welchman play Inventions on violen and cello. As Kennedy says, J.S. Bach did not write one inferior piece of work. I am tempted to go further and say Bach did not write an imperfect piece of work. Top 10 commercials from Super Bowl 2008 Wolf Blitzer dances on the Ellen Degeneres show which is mildly funny, but Jack Cafferty's reaction is pretty good. Sadly, Blitzer promoted this embarrassing episode multiple times on CNN. Daft hands. I think I've linked to this before, but it's pretty cool. Friday, January 23, 2009
Great headline From No Left Turns: "In the Long Run, is Keynes Dead?" Except I wouldn't have put it in the form of a question and I would have switched the Keynes and is. How to deal with Gitmo From Steven Hayward at No Left Turns: "It appears already that the Obama Administration is going to have its hands full figuring out how to close down Guantanamo. Since no Congressperson wants a detainee sent to their district, and many countries of origin of these fine world citizens won’t take them back, why don’t we just cut a hole in the fence and set them loose in Fidel’s island paradise? It would be a nice first step in lifting our obsolete embargo." The state of the stimulus debate Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution: "Matt Yglesias has a very good post on Robert Barro's latest. Brad DeLong seems to agree with Matt. Paul Krugman uses the word 'boneheaded' to describe the Barro piece. This exchange is a good micro-cosm of how the stimulus debate has proceeded. A highly respected anti-stimulus economist puts up some anti-stimulus evidence in a highly imperfect test (in Barro's defense, he did cover more than just WWII). The anti-stimulus economist is attacked by pro-stimulus economists. But the pro-stimulus proponents are focused on attack. They are not putting up comparable empirical evidence of their own for the efficacy of fiscal policy and there is a reason for that, namely that the evidence isn't really there. I fully admit that I don't trust the oft-cited evidence that tax cuts are 4x better stimulus than government spending boosts; I think the result is a mirage from underspecified models. Overall we simply don't know how well the proposed stimulus will work -- if at all (is aggregate demand always the relevant war?). It's a kind of Hail Mary pass, an enduring belief in aggregate demand macroeconomics at the theoretical level, even in light of broken banks, sectoral shifts, and nasty, failing expectations, all mixed in with hard to spend well, slow to come on line, monies. Yes it could work but our agnosticism should be strong rather than just perfunctory. Writing polemics against market-oriented economists, no matter what the failings of such economists (and I am one of them, and I have failings), doesn't get us out of that box. I'll say it again to the pro-stimulus forces: a stimulus is going to happen, so I'd love to be cheered up by your evidence. Put it on the table." He has more, including the links to people mentioned in the first paragraph, here. Playing house is not marriage Andrea Mrozek has a column in the Montreal Gazette on shacking up that is nicely summed up by her ProWomanProLife colleague Brigitte Pellerin: "To pretend that drifting into shared domesticity is the same as getting married is wrong." Mrozek explains why: "Marriage is not the same as living together, on any number of scales, and with great consensus from social scientists no matter their political stripe. The statistical realities are this: People living together break up more readily -- even if they do eventually wed. They are more likely to have multiple partners. Any children face more problems - higher rates of school dropout, more drug use and an earlier age of sexual initiation. And single parents -- mostly mothers -- are more likely to be poor. Kay Hymowitz, the New York-based author of Marriage and Caste in America speaks of a 'marriage divide' -- a new class division between those who marry and those who don't. The latter end up trapped in a cycle of poverty." Worse, as Mrozek points out, the state is not only not discouraging pseudo-marriage, in many Canadian jurisdictions, it is actively shoving couples living together into pretend marriages, with not only the rights of marriage but the legal and financial obligations as well. Thursday, January 22, 2009
Stat of the day From a (London) Times story on a plan to air condition a huge outdoor beach in Dubai: "About 60% of Dubai’s huge power bill is for air-conditioning..." The country cannot be half free and half slave Michael Novak notes in The Corner: "As we think of the first African-American president in history, our minds drift to one class of Americans who will never be allowed to become president -— the 45 million lives aborted in the womb since 1972." A real politics of hope would include ending abortion. As Novak says: "I think many are now praying that the eyes of Barack and Michelle Obama will be opened and that they will not seek to narrow the circle the number of Americans whose rights are protected in law, but rather to widen the circle so that the rights of these great potential talents and loving persons will be protected during the months of their greatest vulnerability." The act of governing moves politicians to the center No doubt, many of you are getting tired of hearing that refrain from me. As the Heritage Foundation's Helle C. Dale concludes a Web Memo on foreign policy challenges for the new administration: "In the days ahead, Obama's foreign policy will take shape. There is no doubt that philosophically, Obama differs from his predecessor. Yet how far world events will allow the Obama foreign policy to diverge from that of the Bush years remains to be seen." Only a complete idiot ignores reality to follow a narrow ideology. While I think Obama is a left-liberal, he doesn't strike me as dumb. He might try to change reality as he sees it, but probably understands that reality is not optional. Why Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned Over in The Corner, Ed Whelan posts his 2005 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. An excerpt: "Roe v. Wade marks the second time in American history that the Supreme Court has invoked "substantive due process" to deny American citizens the authority to protect the basic rights of an entire class of human beings. The first time, of course, was the Court’s infamous 1857 decision in the Dred Scott case (Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)). There, the Court held that the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which prohibited slavery in the northern portion of the Louisiana Territories, could not constitutionally be applied to persons who brought their slaves into free territory. Such a prohibition, the Court nakedly asserted, "could hardly be dignified with the name of due process." Id. at 450. Thus were discarded the efforts of the people, through their representatives, to resolve politically and peacefully the greatest moral issue of their age. Chief Justice Taney and his concurring colleagues thought that they were conclusively resolving the issue of slavery. Instead, they only made all the more inevitable the Civil War that erupted four years later. Roe is the Dred Scott of our age. Like few other Supreme Court cases in our nation’s history, Roe is not merely patently wrong but also fundamentally hostile to core precepts of American government and citizenship. Roe is a lawless power grab by the Supreme Court, an unconstitutional act of aggression by the Court against the political branches and the American people. Roe prevents all Americans from working together, through an ongoing process of peaceful and vigorous persuasion, to establish and revise the policies on abortion governing our respective states. Roe imposes on all Americans a radical regime of unrestricted abortion for any reason all the way up to viability—and, under the predominant reading of sloppy language in Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton, essentially unrestricted even in the period from viability until birth. Roe fuels endless litigation in which pro-abortion extremists challenge modest abortion-related measures that state legislators have enacted and that are overwhelmingly favored by the public—provisions, for example, seeking to ensure informed consent and parental involvement for minors and barring atrocities like partial-birth abortion. Roe disenfranchises the millions and millions of patriotic American citizens who believe that the self-evident truth proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence—that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with an unalienable right to life—warrants significant governmental protection of the lives of unborn human beings." In part of the presentation to the senate committee that Whelan did not post, he examines some of the confusion surrounding the infamous 1973 Supreme Court decision: "The assertion that Roe "legalized" abortion also bears on a surprisingly widespread misunderstanding of the effect of a Supreme Court reversal of Roe. Many otherwise well-informed people seem to think that a reversal of Roe would mean that abortion would thereby be illegal nationwide. But of course a reversal of Roe would merely restore to the people of the States their constitutional authority to establish—and to revise over time—the abortion laws and policies for their respective States. This confusion about what reversing Roe means is also closely related to confusion, or deliberate obfuscation, over what it means for a Supreme Court Justice to be opposed to Roe. In particular, such a Justice is often mislabeled "pro-life." But Justices like Rehnquist, White, Scalia, and Thomas who have recognized that the Constitution does not speak to the question of abortion take a position that is entirely neutral on the substance of America’s abortion laws. Their modest point concerns process: abortion policy is to be made through the political processes, not by the courts. These Justices do not adopt a "pro-life" reading of the Due Process Clause under which permissive abortion laws would themselves be unconstitutional." Read the whole testimony, especially his analysis of the Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Stenberg v. Carhart decisions, and what they mean to abortion law and the system of constitutional government. No reason for pro-lifers to be despondent Michael J. New, a University of Alabama political scientist and Witherspoon Institute visiting fellow, is one of the best writers anywhere on pro-life issues. Writing in NRO today, he addresses the pro-life moment now. Today is the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and to mark the occasion about 100,000 pro-lifers will march in Washington. But the March for Life won't get much coverage, and perhaps that is not a bad thing. Pro-lifers are despondent, dreading the next four years under what is most likely to be the most pro-abortion president ever. That's not the message that should be put on display for America; a movement should not appear to have lost its confidence. New begins his article thusly: "The pro-life movement is despondent. During the recent election cycle, pro-lifers incurred a series of disappointing political defeats, culminating in the election of a president who steadfastly supports keeping abortion legal. Furthermore, some pundits suggest that the Republican party’s pro-life stance hurt its candidates, and thus the party should take a more moderate position. Worse, the new president has pledged to support the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would give the legislative and executive branches’ seal of approval to the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision and roll back many of the pro-life movement’s hard-fought gains. Because of the recent electoral losses in the U.S. Senate, the pro-life movement is desperately scrambling to find 41 senators to mount a successful filibuster. Is this the dystopian scenario we face today? Nope. What I have just described is the political landscape in 1993, the last time the pro-life movement found itself in the political wilderness. There were plenty of reasons for pessimism at the time, but the movement refused to give up and went on to make some very impressive gains during the 1990s—gains that remain today, and should give pro-lifers plenty of hope for the future." We've been here before and we didn't give up. Pro-lifers, especially Christian pro-lifers, should understand the virtue of hope -- even if that word perhaps summons other connotations today. And there are signs of hope. Michael New points to better efforts activating the youth -- a demographic that can effectively evangelize on behalf of the pro-life ethic and which goes against the stereotype. The pro-life movement has done a better job in recognizing that there are two victims of abortion (the killed child and the damaged mother) and putting out a pro-woman message. New says: "The pro-life movement has also reached out to women facing crisis pregnancies. The Silent No More campaign provides powerful testimonies from women who have suffered emotional and physical pain after undergoing abortions. Feminists for Life has made great progress in urging a number of college campuses to be more accommodating for single mothers. The Vitae Caring Foundation has conducted important research about the best ways of approaching women who are facing crisis pregnancies." Other reasons for hope? Ultrasound technology is changing the debate -- sometimes one woman at a time, but over time that will have a huge effect on the culture. Planned Parenthood is facing greater scrutiny and being exposed for what it is. Public opinion is changing and, most importantly, the number of abortions is decreasing. New concludes: " The 2008 elections were certainly a setback, and pro-lifers need to be vigilant about countering the Obama administration’s inevitable efforts to expand legal abortion (at home and abroad). Fighting for the sanctity of life is seldom an easy task. In fact, enacting and enforcing pro-life laws and changing the culture are battles that will likely engage the right-to-life movement for years to come. However, as pro-lifers gather to protest the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we should take heart. Despite the setbacks, we have made real progress. And there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic." For other signs of hope, read my December 2007 Interim cover story, "In the pro-life struggle, the glass is half full." I write that despair is a sin because giving up hope is a heresy because it means believing nine judges, or a Parliament of 300 or Congress of 500, or president or prime minister, is more powerful than God. As John Jalsevac wrote in LifeSiteNews.com last week: "To despair about Obama is to give him too much credit, to overestimate his power. The true response to Obama is the Christian response, and that is to shoulder the weight of the responsibility ourselves instead of looking to another fallen human being to save us; it is to step up our efforts to change the world within the limited sphere that has been given to us. And it is to labor under the knowledge that the final victory has already been won by Christ, and all we’re doing is somehow tying up the loose ends. In this way only will the United States, and the whole world, be transformed; in this way only will a true Culture of Life triumph." The reason not to despair -- apart from the conflicting facts and signs of the state of abortion today -- is that politicians are limited in what they can do. President Barack Obama is likely to make abortion worse in the next few years, but the pro-life movement and pro-life politicians can limit the damage. More importantly, they can continue to do the work -- laying the tracks, so to speak -- for future victories. But despair would hamper the best efforts, taken on with less than full vigour in the expectation of defeat. President Obama makes things worse; giving up will make it disastrous. Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Four and down 4. The stats and post-season record says that Cold Hard Football Facts is right about Kurt Warner being a better QB than Peyton Manning, but there is something to be said about the consistency of Manning over the past decade over the course of a 16-game schedule. Also, when Warner does well he has had good receivers raising a chicken-and-egg question: is Warner good because he has good receivers or are his receivers good because Warner is throwing to them? There is also the matter of what my eyes see: Manning does things that nobody else does, such as not tipping off opponents with his eyes and being situationally superior. But Warner is the 'clutch' performer who gets better in January whereas Manning gets much worse. 3. I love the hiring of Baltimore Ravens defensive co-ordinator Rex Ryan as coach of the New York Jets. Why? He could be a great head coach and might be what the Jets need to make it to the next level, but I don't really care about the Jets. I do, however, care about the Pittsburgh Steelers and it is great to see their division rival's brilliant defensive mind move to another division. 2. The Dallas Cowboys are reportedly interested in Baltimore Ravens inside linebacker Ray Lewis. It is unlikely to happen -- who isn't 'interested' in acquiring one of the best defensive players in the league -- but I'd love to see this happen for the same reason that I like Ryan heading to the Jets: it gets a major thorn in the side of the Steelers out of the division. 1. This SI.com story isn't about the NFL, but college football and how schools (and coaches) recruit talent. Fascinating although it left me wanting more (and not in the bad way). If you are interested in this stuff, make sure you hit the links for charts and details. Three and out 3. Jeff Kent, one of the best hitting 2B of all time, has announced he is retiring. He should be in the Hall of Fame: 290/356/500 with 377 home runs, and 1,518 RBIs. He had eight seasons of at least 100 RBIs (a record for 2B) and his 351 homers as a 2B are 74 more than any other person who played the position. He received MVP votes in different seasons, winning the award in 2000. He went to five All-Star teams and won four Silver Slugger awards. He want to the post-season with seven different teams although he only made the World Series once (losing with the Houston Astros in 2002). If you were to say to the average baseball fan does Jeff Kent belong in the Hall of Fame, they'd probably answer no or suggest he was a borderline case at best. But looking at his numbers, he has both the sustained performance and positional dominance that HoFers should demonstrate. 2. Philadelphia Phillies 1B Ryan Howard is going to arbitration and is asking for $18 million to play in 2009. The Phillies have countered with $14 million. They will almost certainly split the difference. Howard will say that he has hit 48, 48 and 58 homeruns over the past three seasons with between 136 and 149 RBIs. On the other hand, he has struck out 199 times in each of the past two years and in 2008 hit 251 with a 339 OBP, while doing a reasonable impression of a pylon playing first base. I don't begrudge elite players their huge salaries, but Howard is probably only a near-great player and isn't worth $18 million per season. 1. Canada might not be able to field much of a team for the World Baseball Classic (an over-hyped, MLB-organized international baseball tournament) considering the pitchers who won't be able to take part: Erik Bedard (Seattle Mariners), Shawn Hill (Washington Nationals), Scott Mathieson (Philadelphia Phillies), and, probably, Rich Harden (Chicago Cubs) are injured. Ryan Dempster (Cubs) has chosen not to play. A potentially competitive squad looks like they will depart the tourney early. Fact of the day There are more Americans employed by the government than there are working in the manufacturing sector. It will be difficult for the Republicans to run as an anti-government party when so many voters are working for it. Cheap house, but you have to move to Detroit CNN reports: "The real estate market is so awful that buyers are now scooping up homes for as little as $1,000. There are 18 listings in Flint, Mich., for under $3,000, according to Realtor.com. There are 22 in Indianapolis, 46 in Cleveland and a whopping 709 in Detroit. All of these communities have been hit hard by foreclosures, and most of these homes are being sold by the lenders that repossessed them." Not that the lenders are making anything off them; the realtors are often taking 100% of the selling price. And then there are the fixer-uppers that even when you take into account the renovation costs, still seem like a deal (if you are willing to live in Detroit): "In Detroit for instance, Century 21 Villa owner Randy Eissa has a three-bedroom, one-bath bungalow of about 1,000 square feet listed at just $500. It's a nice place with lots of light, but it needs a total rehabilitation inside, which Eissa estimates will cost between $15,000 and $20,000. But that's not bad, considering that the home last sold for $72,000 in late 2007, according to Zillow.com." But there's a hitch (and it's imposed by government): "Often buyers are legally required to rehab these homes to bring them up to code. In Detroit, buyers are required to sign Affidavits of Compliance Responsibility, which obligates them to make repairs outlined in an inspection report. Only after that can a certificate of occupancy will be issued, which makes the house legal to live in." (HT: Newark's Door) Damian Brooks is blogging from Afghanistan First post is here. Get a coffee, sit down, and read about our military men and women who are trying to make that part of the world a little more civilized, a little more inhabitable. Brooks is there as part of a 'regional media familiarization visit' which, no doubt, needed to counter the familiar but incomplete picture the Canadian media gives of Afghanistan. He reports: "To be brutally honest, we’ve been losing the fight for the hearts and minds of Canadians, largely because we’re surrendering the mental and emotional battle to the bad guys. Think about it. Every time they get an IED [improvised explosive devices] victory, it’s splashed all over our news from the moment the casualty is announced at KAF, to the ramp ceremony, to the repatriation ceremony at Trenton, to interviews with friends, colleagues, and family. Canadians feel each death keenly, because we’ve come to value life so much more since the last time we were involved in a prolonged military conflict. We use the event of the hundredth death to reflect on the mission, on the human cost of it. Each time the Taliban gets lucky with an IED, the ripple effects on public opinion in Canada are huge. But when our side wins, when we find an IED and defeat it, we clam up about it because of OPSEC concerns. So the image the public gets is a skewed one: they’re blowing our boys and girls up with impunity, and we can’t seem to do anything about it. That's why I’ve been trying to convince people in uniform for years that while we certainly need to respect OPSEC issues, we also need to strike a better balance in terms of informing the Canadian public about our own victories as well, so that they have some context when the Taliban gets one of their very few IED victories... Countering the IED threat starts with intelligence. Where are the bomb-builders and those who plant them? Where are the detonators, switches, and explosives they use to produce the IED’s? Where are the devices planted? Very little surrounding that intelligence can be revealed to the public, and for good reason. But it’s no secret that one of the best solutions to the intelligence challenge is the local population. IED’s are an indiscriminate weapon, and according to the CF, half of those killed in Kandahar province last year were Afghan civilians blown up by insurgent IED’s. So the Afghans are motivated to help the ISAF forces, on this issue at the very least." Cool things on YouTube, Julia Nunes edition I am a big fan of the (usually) ukulele-playing Julia Nunes, especially these songs: Mr. Brightside (one of my all-time 20 favourite songs and I like this version better than the original by The Killers) God Only Knows Build me up Buttercup Falling Slowly (with Danny Tieger) Into the Sunshine (an original song) Tuesday, January 20, 2009
There are limits to what a president can do And regardless of who resides in the White House there are some things that are predictable. Here is Robin Hanson at Overcoming Bias: "We've heard a lot of hyperbole about how Bush was the 'Worst. President. Ever.' and Obama's inauguration is the most exciting in a half century. So to avoid future bias, this is a good time to ask yourself: where do you set Obama's bar? That is, what does Obama have to do for you to consider him a 'good' president, or even better than Bush? It is enough for you that he is (part) black and a Democrat? Or does he actually have to do something? Or are those already insurmountable barriers to you? For most any president today, odds are that we'd: * be mostly out of our moderately deep recession in four years, * add some symbolic financial rules that mostly lets old games continue, * mostly watch as Israel, Russia, and China throw more weight around, * mismanage another Katrina because governments are just bad at that, * go deeper in debt 'stimulating' and 'bailing' because politicians love to spend, * not much relax homeland security or immigration because we're still scared of terrorists, * mildly pull out of Iraq since the war has been going well lately but we don't like to look weak, * do little on carbon emissions or the coming Medicare train wreck as those are very expensive, and *not reform medicine or education or welfare more than Bush's Medicare drug benefit and 'no child left behind,' or Clinton's welfare reform, as those were unusually big changes." Policy changes will be at the margins and many will be more symbolic than substantive (not that symbolism isn't important). That's what moves politicians to the center and when a liberal Democrat takes office, that's a good thing. How Bush should be judged I think there are a lot of important issues that George W. Bush messed up (the failure to reform entitlements, the creation of new ones, increased regulation) and some great things he has done (two fantastic Supreme Court appointments and plenty of good lower court appointments, the promotion of a culture of life in both policy and rhetoric). But on the most urgent issue (national security) his response to 9/11 worked. As Roger Kimball noted in the NRO symposium on Bush's legacy: "When the United States was attacked by al-Qaeda on 9/11, every expert in Alpha Centauri solemnly announced that it was only a matter of time—and not much time, either—before the United States was attacked again. Well, here we are some seven and a half years later and, guess what, it hasn’t happened." I make this point often: on September 11, 2001, the talking heads weren't talking about if the terrorists hit America again, but when. Thankfully, they haven't -- so far. Bush gets a lot of credit for taking the fight to them rather than waiting to be a target again. Defense of the republic is the president's most important duty and on that file Bush gets a good grade. What I'm reading 1. The Human Rights Watch World Report 2009. 2. Council of Economic Advisers report to the President of the United States, particularly chapter four, "The Benefits of Open Trade and Investment Policies." 3. "Immoral advances: Is science out of control?" by Dan Jones in the January 9 New Scientist. 4. "Beware of Pity: Hannah Arendt and the power of the impersonal," by Adam Kirsch in the current New Yorker. 5. "Risk and Safety," by Aaron Wildavsky and Adam Wildavsky from the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Three and out 3. Rule changes are being discussed at the MLB meetings and I am in favour of both: ensuring that playoff games are not called after 15 outs (that is they are played to at least nine innings) and that the system to determine home-field advantage for one-game playoffs will be changed from a coin flip to head-to-head and then divisional records. Both are fair and common-sense changes. 2. Despite the hundreds of millions spent on free agents this winter, there are still holes in the Yankee lineup, particularly in the outfield. Not a lot of long-term promise there either and who knows what the long-term plan is for shortstop -- or more accurately what to do with Derek Jeter after he can't field the position any longer. 1. Classy move: former Cubs pitcher Kerry Woods thanked the fans in Chicago in full page ads in the Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune. He is leaving the team via free agency to the Cleveland Indians, but before he left he told fans: "It has been an honor to have been a Chicago Cub for the last 13 years and to have played in the greatest ballpark, Wrigley Field. My deepest thanks go to my teammates and the Cubs organization for taking a chance on a kid from Texas and welcoming me into the Cubs family." Monday, January 19, 2009
510 PolitFact is tracking Barack Obama's 510 campaign promises and whether or not they are fulfilled. Health reform as stimulus? Robert Book from the Heritage Foundation rebuts the idea. He tackles a number of specific problems, including an inherent contradiction of health care reform that helps reduce the cost of health care and health care reform as an economic stimulus that puts money into the economy: "[I]n order for heath care reform to be 'an engine of job growth,' health care spending must go up, not down. After all, the main reason people like jobs is that they come with paychecks. The goal of reducing health care costs directly contradicts the 'logic' of stimulus spending. The idea of stimulus through primary care reform is a contradiction: Spending will be reduced, as higher-paying specialty care jobs are replaced by lower-paying primary care jobs. Furthermore, these jobs--in serious professions requiring real expertise and years of training--would do little to improve the short-term job prospects of people laid off from other industries." Book concludes: "Any money the federal government spends on health care reform, health IT, Medicaid, roads and bridges, or anything else has to come from somewhere. And that "somewhere" is either increased taxes, more borrowing, or inflation of the currency, any combination of which would cancel out any "stimulus" effect of the new spending. Spending money on health care or "roads and bridges" might create jobs in the health care or construction industries, but that is only at the cost of jobs destroyed somewhere else. This is what economists mean when they say, "There is no such thing as a free lunch." Prosperity cannot be achieved by simply moving resources around from one sector of the economy to another. Rather, it can be achieved only by increasing production..." Red China to make one-child policy more stringent The city of Beijing is increasing fines for having more than one child. I found this explanation by Deng Xingzhou of the family planning commission frightening on so many levels: "As the public feels strongly against those who have more children just because they can afford to pay the fines, we are thinking of collecting much higher social maintenance fees from those who go against the policy." From the bureaucratic language of 'social maintenance fees' to justifying the policy on the public's (alleged) anti-child, anti-wealth sentiment, this is scary stuff. Sunday, January 18, 2009
Any given Sunday  Philadelphia Eagles at Arizona Cardinals: Eagles favoured by four The Eagles beat the Cards 48-20 on Thanksgiving weekend but this isn't the same Arizona team. While everyone is raving about the Donovan McNabb turnaround since his benching the week before the Cards game, he has had extremely sub-standard games in two of the last four games. Brian Westbrook hasn't appeared to be the elite running back that he is, perhaps still bothered by an early-season injury. The Philly defense still appears the be the third-ranked unit it was during the regular season, but co-ordinator Jim Johnson's blitzes might not be as effective against Kurt Warner who is an exceptionally quick release. That said, the Eagles' defense will challenge the Cards more than either the Carolina Panthers or Atlanta Falcons. But the Eagles defense faces its greatest challenge, too. Warner has three great targets in Larry Fitzgerald (best WR in the game this year), Anquan Boldin (one of the great playmakers in the NFL) and Steve Breaston (dangerous in his own right). RB Edgerrin James, who is showcasing his talents for the free agent market, has rejuvenated his game and with it added a new dimension to Arizona's offense. The Cards defense has become a different beast in the playoffs and if they play like they have the past two weeks they'll pressure McNabb and prevent the steady forward march of the Eagles offense. Cards get the upset at home. Baltimore Ravens at Pittsburgh Steelers: Steelers favoured by six The Ravens defense is looking tired -- and injured. Safety Ed Reed was hardly a factor last week, playing through a knee injury and LB Terrell Suggs is unlikely to play (or, if he does, be available all game) and CB Samari Rolle is questionable. (On offense, WRs Mark Clayton is playing through a thigh injury, WR Derrick Mason will suit despite a knee injury, and TE Todd Heap and fullback Le'Ron McClain are playing with various ailments.) The rejuvenated run offense -- led by a reinvigorated Willie Parker -- and QB Ben Roethlisberger should be able to take advantage of the Ravens struggling and weary D. Despite media treatment that has him as the second coming of Joe Montana or something, Ravens rookie QB Joe Flacco has only completed 44% of his post-season passes. He makes the plays for big gains when he has had to, but will have difficulty against the league's best pass defense; RB Willis McGahee and FB McClain will have trouble against the second best pass defense. The Steelers had the stingiest defense of the regular season and while the Ravens were the second best defense, Pittsburgh is rested and ready to go. Will still be a bruising affair but the Steelers should win and beat the six point spread. It's worth the wait The Sunday Telegraph reports: "A new study shows prolonging the mating courtship and refusing to sleep with a partner on the first date could be one of the keys to making a successful match. Researchers used a mathematical model to show that more reliable men were willing to wait longer before having sex for the first time. By contrast, less suitable men were not as likely to continue dating. Professor Robert Seymour, from University College London (UCL), who created the model, said: 'Longer courtship is a way for the female to acquire information about the male. 'By delaying mating, the female is able to reduce the chance that she will mate with a bad male'." Unamericanly American Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, John O'Sullivan captures the national mood -- not just a partisan one -- on the eve of the inauguration: "Inside the ring of steel, however, are all the inaugural trappings that the huckstering genius of America's commercial civilisation can provide. As one distinguished conservative Grinch, Ramesh Ponnuru, observed in Time magazine: 'Also available [in addition to Obama T-shirts and bumper stickers] are Obama coasters, lava lamps, jigsaw puzzles, mugs, skateboards, toy trains, CDs, DVDs and, of course, commemorative dinner plates. Ben & Jerry's is introducing a "Yes Pecan" flavour in honour of Obama's campaign slogan, and Marvel Comics is running a special Inaugural issue of Spider-Man. Pepsi has created the Pepsi Optimism Project with a red, white and blue logo almost identical to Obama's sunrise button. And Obama's face now graces subway tickets sold in the nation's capital'." There is something very American in this commercialism and yet something very unAmerican in its leader-worship. I'm sure the Republic will survive because the euphoria cannot last. And that's a good thing. Because government is imminently qualified to do this Robert J. Shiller in the New York Times: "In evaluating the causes of the financial crisis, don’t forget the countless fundamental mistakes made by millions of people who were caught up in the excitement of the real estate bubble, taking on debt they could ill afford. Many errors in personal finance can be prevented. But first, people need to understand what they ought to do. The government’s various bailout plans need to take this into account — by starting a major program to subsidize personal financial advice for everyone." If you read on, Shiller explains that the government already is in the business of dispensing financial advice, but it isn't working. So he advises that what America needs is more of what isn't working. Obama's victory defeats racial victimhood in America Or at least it should. From George F. Will's column in today's Washington Post: "Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom -- she of the Manhattan Institute, he a Harvard historian -- say that Barack Obama's election demonstrates that another facet of the Voting Rights Act has lost its original, and even then spurious, rationale. Because 'it is no longer possible to argue that racial identity is an insurmountable barrier to the highest office in the land' and because 'there are no longer any meaningful racial barriers to voting or holding office in America,' it is time to end the unseemly practice of racial gerrymandering to produce 'majority minority' legislative districts to guarantee the election of minority candidates." In other words, when a black man is elected president, the Voting Rights Act is an anachronism. And that's a good thing. Saturday, January 17, 2009
AGS revisited Better late than never. I thought I already posted this. My championship game predictions will be up before the Philly-Arizona kick-off. Baltimore Ravens 13, Tennessee Titans 10: Titans were favoured by three but I took the Ravens. A lot of the post-game analysis have Tenny losing but that doesn't do justice to the decent job an obviously tired Ravens defense did at disrupting the Titans offense when they needed to. And while officiating gets blamed for the Titans loss (a missed delay of game call down the stretch), if Tennessee did any number of things they should have (including not missing field goals), they, not Baltimore would be in the AFC Championship. It says a lot that the Titans had nearly 400 yards of offense against the Ravens (and 180 yards more offense than Baltimore) and they still lost; they failed to convert third downs or play efficient offense in Baltimore's half of the field. The Titans had three turnovers (to the Ravens' zero) and while Baltimore's rookie QB Joe Flacco isn't as great as his press has him (making only 50% of his passes), he is making big plays when he has to, including plays of at least 23 yards to three different receivers (WRs Derrick Mason and Mark Clayton, and TE Todd Heap) last weekend. The Ravens defense was not as dominating throughout the game as they usually are, but were shutdown when they had to be. And certainly the loss of standout rookie RB Chris Johnson in the second half affected the Titans offense. But those are the breaks and Baltimore took advantage of them. Arizona Cardinals 33, Carolina Panthers 13: I took the Panthers who were favoured by 9.5 but said they wouldn't cover. I also said I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the Cards won. QB Jake Delhomme turned 34 on Saturday but he had an unhappy birthday throwing five interceptions and giving up a lost fumble. It's hard to make that many mistakes and keep your team in the game. The Panthers scored 56 minutes apart and in between their opponents scored 33. Cards QB Kurt Warner was great, but he looked even better with Larry Fitzgerald making incredible plays, catching balls he had no right to get to. Even though Anquan Boldin was out, Steve Breaston was enough of a threat to prevent Fitzgerald from being triple teamed which might have neutralized the league's best wideout. The O-line was great, giving up just one sack, and the D-line contained the Panthers' running duo of DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart. The defensive backs were excellent, forcing Delhomme to throw into some crowded spots and limiting Steve Smith to just two catches for 43 yards. Every part of the Cards game was great, making the number two seed Carolina Panthers look like chumps. Philadelphia Eagles 23, New York Giants 11: I correctly predicted the Eagles would upset the G-Men. Eli Manning looked totally flustered by not atypical Meadowlands winds. Donovan McNabb did not, and although he didn't have a great game (just 22 for 40, two picks, 55 passer rating) he was good when he needed to be, including 7 for 14 in third down situations. And while none of the Eagles' had a great game -- Brian Westbrook had 46 combined yards and no TDs -- the Giants were horrible. RB Brandon Jacobs had 92 yards but none in key situations, including running into a crowd at 4th and one rather than veering left through an open lane. The Giants didn't score a touchdown all day, which explains how they blew an 11-10 lead they held until nearly halfway through the third. While the Eagles were hardly overwhelming, they played with an intensity and sense of urgency for all 60 minutes, whereas the Giants never did; down by two possessions with 10 minutes left in the fourth, Manning's squad was lingering between the huddle and lining up at scrimmage. While the Eagles might have deserved the victory, the Giants definitely deserved the loss. Pittsburgh Steelers 35, San Diego Chargers 24: I predicted the Steelers would win and the score is not indicative of how lop-sided the play was in favour of Pittsburgh. They controlled possession for 36:30 of the game including all but 13 seconds of the first 13 minutes of the third quarter. They allowed the Chargers into their red zone just once all game. They didn't have any turnovers. And 14 of San Diego's points came in the final 10 minutes when the Steelers essentially had the game wrapped up. The Steelers are finally healthy, and at the right time. Ben Roesthlisberger looked solid, successfully completing at least a pair of passes with six different targets. RB Willie Parker had 146 yards on 27 carries with two TDs. The O-line kept Big Ben upright (allowing just one sack, but he was hardly ever under pressure), and the D-line kept the Bolts' running game to a minimum. Darren Sproles was the only Charger to run with the ball and he had all of 15 yards. Santonio Holmes returned a punt for 67 yards with a really nifty stop and hop in the final 10 yards to avoid a tackle by Legedu Naanee. The Steelers won with a dominating defense that put Philip Rivers under plenty of pressure which forced lots of long but ultimately unsuccessful throws, while their own offense was efficient and diverse enough to beat the Chargers. Wisdom from Jim Brown Jim Brown, legendary fullback for the Cleveland Browns, on what he has learned, in Esquire: "A liberal is arrogant enough to think he can do you a half-assed favor. He is superior enough to think he can give you something that you don't deserve. A liberal will cut off your leg so he can hand you a crutch." And: "Sex is always wonderful, but it's like having a great meal. It is only what it is. It can never be everything in itself. And it has a downside that's devastating. When you understand sex, you understand that your fidelity is the greatest thing you have." Hope this is true and turns into something substantial Barrel Strength reports: "At the request of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice has created a departmental committee to examine section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This is the section which bans hate messages distributed by the Internet. Members include lawyers from various branches of the department of Justice, including constitutional, human rights, criminal and Industry Canada branches." If this is true, it's quite a turnaround from the Prime Minister's stated views of just a few weeks ago. Of course, it could be true and still be nothing, because it doesn't take much to create a committee to examine something and then find everything is fine or do nothing. The government could save time and just read Professor Richard Moon's report for the Canadian Human Rights Commission which found that Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be scrapped and real hate be prosecuted under Section 319 of the Criminal Code (hate laws) rather than in the kangaroo courts of the human rights commission industry. (HT: Five Feet of Fury) Todd Drew, RIP Todd Drew was a baseball blogger and frequent commenter to baseball blogs. He passed away this week. Three or four weeks ago he wrote this: "I went to a baseball game after my father’s funeral. I also went to one after finding out about my mother’s brain cancer. It was selfish and heartless. I felt guilty before and embarrassed after, but for nine innings I felt only the game. That’s the way it’s always been between baseball and me. It was my friend when I didn’t have any others. And it has always been there to talk or listen or simply to watch. Baseball helps me forget and it makes me remember. That’s why it was exactly what I needed on the worst days of my life. But there were no games when a doctor told me that I had cancer. The neighborhood was out of baseball on that cold November day. No one was playing at Franz Sigel Park or John Mullaly Park. And there wasn’t even a game of catch in Joyce Kilmer Park. The last game at the old Yankee Stadium was long gone and Opening Day at the new Yankee Stadium was long off. So I went home and wished for one of those summer days when I was a kid and my mother would send me to the ballpark with a paper sack stuffed with her famous tuna-fish sandwiches. That was back when you could slip through a delivery gate with the beer kegs and watch batting practice. And it was always okay to come home late with a beat-up scorecard and popcorn stuck between your teeth. The doctor told me that tomorrow’s surgery and chemotherapy treatment might keep me in the hospital for 10 days. 'At least it’s December,' I said. 'There aren’t any ballgames to miss.' And I will be ready to slip through a delivery gate with the beer kegs when the new Yankee Stadium opens. I’ll watch batting practice with one of my mother’s famous tuna-fish sandwiches and come home late with a beat-up scorecard and popcorn stuck between my teeth. Cancer can’t change the way it will always be between baseball and me." I love the glass-is-half-full view of cancer treatment -- at least he isn't going to miss a baseball game. Baseball fans -- fellow Yankee fans who never even knew Todd -- are going to miss him. That seems strange. Drew worked for the ACLU (we would have disagreed about politics, surely) and he showed a big heart. One blog post last month was about a homeless guy, Robbie Sanchez. that Drew talked to and recounts this quote from Mr. Sanchez: "I’m just between lives right now. The key is to hold on until you make it to the other side ... Baseball lifts my spirits. Things don’t seem as bad when you’ve got something to look forward to." And one of those things can be Spring Training, just a few weeks from now, or Opening Day, a long two months, ten days away. A dying Todd Drew knew that and as did the homeless Robbie Sanchez. The limits of politics Or, a president does not a country make John Jalsevac at LifeSiteNews.com has some thoughtful reflections on the state of pro-life in America after eight years of life under a pro-life president: "For eight years we had a pro-life president; why, then, isn’t the U.S. a pro-life country? It is effortless to respond, 'Because George Bush didn’t do as much as he could or should have, as much as we expected him to do.' It’s a lot harder to say, 'Because we haven’t done as much as we could or ought to have.' And as with many other things, you will find that the hard answer strikes at the heart of things, while the easier is mere evasion. We sometimes like to think that our politicians have unlimited power to do as they please. In other words we like to think that we have a dictator rather than a president. This gives us the comfort of feeling that once we’ve put 'our man' in power, we’ve done all that we can: 'Good ol' George’ll take care of things from here.' But of course that is the whole point of the elegant U.S. political structure – that no one has that power." But it is also more than that. A country is more than its politics. And conservatives would do well to avoid the mistake liberals have made, namely hating America, or looking down on it, because its citizens choose a liberal Democrat to be its political leader for four years -- just as the Left became (even more) embarrassed by their country during the Bush administration. It is, after all, only politics. The culture -- the schools, the entertainment media, its journalism, the entrepreneurial economy, family life, the churches and charities, and so many other aspects of life -- is a much more important barometer of the health of a nation and predictor of its future. On feminism J. Peter Freire in The American Spectator blog: "I sincerely doubt that American feminists, under current leadership, are ever going to consider the human rights side of their movement before the bra-burning part of it. If it were to step outside of the narrowly-defined box (we'll call it the Kitchen of Liberalism), left-leaning organizations that assert a right to abortion and mandated sick leave would drop their support and supposedly 'delegitimize' them." Friday, January 16, 2009
Making pro-lifers look stupid Judi Brown of the American Life League condemns Krispy Kreme donuts over a supposedly pro-abortion, Obama donuts. The company issues this press release: "Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE: KKD) is honoring American's sense of pride and freedom of choice on Inauguration Day, by offering a free doughnut of choice to every customer on this historic day, Jan. 20. By doing so, participating Krispy Kreme stores nationwide are making an oath to tasty goodies -- just another reminder of how oh-so-sweet 'free' can be." Brown says that 'choice' is synonymous with abortion and therefore the donut maker is promoting a pro-abortion message. Nonsense. Pro-lifers shouldn't surrender the word 'choice' so easily. The language is obviously a tie-in to American democracy rather than abortion. Is this the best ALL can do on the week of Obama's inauguration? Anglican bishop questions British immigration and multicultural policies  Dr John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, the second highest ranking Anglican prelate, and an immigrant from Somalia in the 1970s, has criticized the UK's open-door immigration policy and its resultant policy of official multiculturalism. The Daily Mail summarizes Dr. Sentamu's position thusly: "He referred to the view of Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks that until the 1950s immigrants were like guests in a country house, who were expected to assimilate British values and to belong to the existing society. But with the decline of empire and the growth of Commonwealth immigration, the pattern had become more like a hotel." Great metaphor. Dr. Sentamu explains: "Guests are entitled to stay if they can pay their way and receive basic services in return for their payment ... But they are guests -- they do not belong. In the same way, migrants to Britain from the 1960s onwards have made their home with their cultural rights protected under legislation framed under a multicultural perspective Consequently, any sense of a shared common culture is eroded, risking increasing segregation." (HT: Five Feet of Fury) White-on-white racism From Stephen Glover in the Daily Mail: "Which is the most shocking example of racism we have learned about in the past week? Is it the video of Prince Harry, made in 2006, in which he refers to a fellow officer cadet as a 'Paki' and tells another Army colleague that he looks like a 'raghead'? Or is it perhaps the revelation that his father Prince Charles addresses a polo-playing Asian friend by the nickname of 'Sooty', which is apparently perfectly all right by the gentleman concerned, whose real name is Kuldip Dhillon? Or might it be the case of a young Englishwoman called Lucy Newman, who was punched to the ground in Aberdeen and very badly injured, apparently because she was English? Although you will have heard and read a great deal about Prince Harry and Prince Charles, you probably know little or nothing about what happened to Ms Newman, and her fractured cheekbone and damaged eye nerves, for the simple reason that the media have barely reported the incident." So while the media goes on about the Paki comment by Prince Harry and ignores the story of Lucy Newman, Glover notes: "It was the only case of the three in which something nasty actually happened as a consequence of a racist attitude. Prince Harry and Prince Charles used mere words. Lucy Newman's attacker hit her in the face after saying: 'Get back to England.' The police are treating it as a racist incident, and they could hardly do otherwise." Glover goes on: "The racist utterances or actions of whites in relation to other whites are judged with an indulgent eye, if they are noticed at all." At first I didn’t like his description of white-on-white racism, but as Thomas Sowell teaches, race is synomymous with ethnic group, so brutish Scots assaulting the English and Poles should qualify as racism. The point, however, is that such violence doesn’t get the attention that an unfortunate comment gets. Sticks and stone may break my bones but words can be a hate crime. Nuts. Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Good news, unless you are green alarmist From the Daily Tech Science blog, news that seems to counter the global warming hysterics: "Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close. Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards." (HT: ElectEcon) Four and down 4. San Diego Chargers' coach Norv Turner axed four coaches after a 'disappointing' 8-8 season which was good enough to win the AFC West. The Bolts lost in the divisional games last weekend and whether the particular coaches are the best fit for the Chargers is not as important as the fact that Turner is a bad coach who shouldn't the head of this team. I watched a lot of Chargers games this year (five or six) and he made a lot of bad decisions, some of them that cost the Bolts points or gave up points. Yes, the team suffered a lot of injuries, got better after they brought Ron Rivera in as defensive co-ordinator, and lost four games in the final half-minute of the game. But Turner is a lousy coach and shuffling the sub-ordinates isn't going to change that. 3. The Denver Broncos seemed to have made the right move hiring New England Patriot's offensive co-ordinator Josh McDaniels as their new head coach but they are making an even better move letting him run the coaching staff. QB Jay Cutler, who broke a number of John Elway team records this year, wants QB coach Jeremy Bates to stay and RB coach Bobby Turner (who has been with the team for 14 years) is well-regarded. But as Broncs owner Pat Bowlen said, McDaniels is "the head football coach, that's his job" -- naming his coaching staff. Bowlen, the AP reported, "would like to see McDaniels keep some of [former head coach Mike] Shanahan's offensive coaches around but he's not going to insist on it." 2. McDaniels wasted no time shaking up the defensive coaching situation, naming former San Fran 49ers head coach Mike Nolan as defensive co-ordinator -- the team's fourth defensive coordinator in four years. Nolan held the same title with the Baltimore Ravens, New York Jets and Washington Redskins before joining the Niners and was a special teams and linebackers coach with the Broncos in the late '80s and early '90s. The Broncs were 29th in yards allowed and the personnel isn't there yet, so Nolan has a tough job ahead. 1. Last weekend I called Pittsburgh Steelers' backup QB Byron Leftwich, Brian. I should have known better. Three and out 3. Great move by the Atlanta Braves signing Derek Lowe to a four-year, $60 million deal. That might be a little more one might want to spend on a 35-year-old pitcher but for a team on the cusp of competing and without consistent quality in the rotation, it was needed. In the last seven seasons, Lowe has thrown 200 innings five times and 199.1 innings in 2007. In 2004, he threw 188.2 innings. Lowe has kept his ERA under 3.90 for the past four seasons and his 3.24 ERA last season for the LA Dodgers is his best mark since 2002. He should be a solid contributor for the majority of, if not all, the four years of this deal. 2. The city of Anaheim will drop its legal challenge to the name of the Angels, giving up the fight to restore the team's name to the Anaheim Angels. In 2005, team owner Arte Moreno changed the name to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. (That's kind of cumbersome.) The city has lost several decision in court during their legal battle. To me the Angels will always be the California Angels. 1. The Houston Astros sign their arbritation eligible reliever Jose Valverde for one year at $8 million which is too much for a mediocre team to pay a mediocre closer. 'The Alternate Finance Crisis Glossary' From Josh Giersch at Josh Reviews Everything. The whole list is here, but below are some of my favourites: Deflation The look on a trader's face on bonus day. Equity Sheets of paper that previously conveyed partial ownership of a publicly listed company; now only good for wiping with. See also "commercial paper". Nationalisation What happens to banks that are Too Big To Fail. Banks not considered Too Big To Fail can sod off. Ponzi scheme An illegal scheme, promising implausibly large returns, whereby the returns to earlier investors are paid out of the money invested by later investors, rather than from profits. See also "social security". Retained earnings Your money, after you've wired it to Bernie Madoff. Incentivizing doing well at school Ultimately this is betting to give students an incentive to ace tests and exams. The long-term incentives, the creators say, of success in a career are too far off to sustain maximum effort during one's educational 'career' so they hope competition with financial rewards will lead to more effort (better study habits, more time on school work and less time doing other things) being expended to get better grades. Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Four and down 4. The fourth-seeded NFC West division champ St. Louis Cardinals needed two 24-hour extensions to sell out their Wild Card playoff game two weeks ago to avoid a local television blackout. After they secured the home game when the Philadelphia Eagles beat the number one seed New York Giants on Sunday, the Cardinals sold out this weekend's NFC Championship in six minutes. Some might call it jumping on the bandwagon, but they'd be wrong. Not that there wasn't something wrong with taking so long to sellout the Cards' first playoff home game since the 1940s -- when they were still playing in Chicago. 3. After 31 years in football, Tony Dungy announced yesterday that he will retire as coach of the Indianapolis Colts. His name will always be associated with being the first black coach to win the Super Bowl but he was much, much more than that. He was one of the best coaches of all time. He set league records for most consecutive playoff appearances (10) and consecutive 12-win seasons (six); his average of 10.7 wins per season is the highest average in NFL history. Sports Illustrated's Damon Hack captures it best: "When the Tampa Bay Buccaneers hired him in 1996, a doormat was transformed into a playoff team. When the Indianapolis Colts hired him in 2002, Dungy elevated a talented team to the level of Super Bowl champion." His only losing season was his first year as head of the Bucs, but he quickly turned them into a contender. He was an excellent judge of talent and he brought a lot of great people to higher levels in the business; his former assistant coaches (from his Tampa Bay Buccaneer days) to become head coaches include Herm Edwards (Kansas City Chiefs), Lovie Smith (Chicago Bears), Mike Tomlin (Pittsburgh Steelers) and Rod Marinelli (formerly with the Detroit Lions. And yet he seemed fairly down to Earth and knew that he was blessed to live a life most people only dream about. A great man has left the field and no one begrudges him the time he will now spend with his family -- no doubt he was honest about wanting to spend more time with his family considering one of his teenage children committed suicide a few years ago -- but we can also hope that he returns to the NFL come day, in some capacity. 2. Mike Florio has an interesting Top 10 significant moves made by the remaining four playoff teams that have had a positive impact on their success. Some were accidents; the Baltimore Ravens picked up QB Joe Flacco and he has been solid (and improving) but they wanted Matt Ryan, who played under center for the Atlanta Falcons and won the Rookie fo the Year Honours. Others were out of necessity, such as the Pittsburgh Steelers going with their running game (because WR Hines Ward wasn't healthy or reliable). Sometimes teams get to where they are not by plan but circumstances beyond their control or forced upon them. 1. Not good news for the Steelers: AP reports that safety Troy Polamalu injured a calf before Sunday's divisional playoff victory over San Diego (which explains why he wasn't his usual presence), will work 'lightly' in the practices this week and might not be available for the whole championship game. Polomalu is one of my three favourite current players and games aren't quite the same when he isn't flying all over the field tackling opponents, breaking up passes and making interceptions. Three and out 3. Rickey Henderson is in the Hall of Fame, garnering 94.8% of the vote. Who were the 5% of Baseball Writers of America Association members who did not vote for one of the top 20 players of all time? I'm not just asking this because he is one of my five favourite all-time ball players. He had 3055 hits and 297 homers, just exceeding and just missing two typical (but, honesty, insufficient) milestones for inclusion in the Hall of Fame. But considering his career, these normally important factors in traditional baseball journalists marking off a hitter's name for inclusion in the HoF are but the least significant statistics. Over 24 seasons Henderson hit 279/401/419) and he is the career stolen base and run leader, was first in walks when he retired (overtaken by Barry Bonds), and is universally acknowledged as the greatest leadoff hitter of all time. He played in 10 All Star games, has an MVP award (and finished in the top 10 in MVP voting five other times), a Gold Glove, and was a key contributor to two World Series-winning teams. He was incredible in the post-season, going 284/389/441 in October, but stepping it up a notch when it mattered most (339/448/607 in 14 World Series games). He was entertaining as can be to watch and played with a passion that few can match. He really deserved to be unanimous, and yet more than 5% of the 511 people eligible to vote for the Hall of Fame refused for some reason to put his name on their ballot. Perhaps we should reconsider the eligibility of HoF voters. At the very least, the dissenters should clearly articulate why Henderson did not deserve their vote. 2. The Cleveland Indians avoided arbitration by signing catcher Kelly Shoppach to a one-year deal worth $1.95 million. The catcher, who splits duties with Victor Martinez (who also spends some time at DH and 1B), hit 261/348/517 with 21 homers in 2008 -- including 14 dingers in the second half (sixth most in the American League). He deservedly increased his salary from a shade over $400,000 and one could argue that considering he was third in homeruns among catchers despite having just 352 at-bats, he is under-paid. 1. Most amazing thing about the Indians signing? It continues an 18-year streak of the Tribe avoiding arbitration. Sometimes an anecdote says a lot Mary Wakefield reviews Richard Dowden's Africa: Altered States, Ordinary Miracles in the pages of The American Conservative [sic] and presents a sad but notable anecdote: "[I]t’s comic but telling that the whole concept of a loyal opposition leaves Africans perplexed. 'In 1991, Neil Kinnock, the leader of Britain’s Labour Party, then in opposition, toured Southern Africa,' writes Dowden. 'Over Zimbabwe his plane was forced down by bad weather and he landed unannounced at a small airstrip in the bush. Zimbabwean soldiers detained the plane and questioned the visitor. When he proudly announced that he was leader of the opposition in Britain they arrested him. They were thrilled. The soldiers thought they’d caught a really important terrorist'." Joe the Reporter The Joe formerly known as the Plumber badgered some Israeli reporter: JOE: The story here is people are being killed and the media’s slanting it and trying to make it Hamas is, uh, as far as, that Israel’s being bad. Do you believe Israel is bad? REPORTER: Do I believe it? JOE: Yeah, do you?! REPORTER: I’m Israeli, so… JOE: So answer the question! REPORTER: No, I don’t think Israel is bad. JOE: Do you think Israel has every right to protect itself? REPORTER: Yeah. [pause] JOE: You do?! REPORTER: Yeah. JOE: Have you said that on air? REPORTER: I’m just a reporter. But Joe doesn't like reporters giving their opinion. He told Roger L. Simon: "JOE: They’re supposed to bring the news to you unbiased. They’re supposed to actually report it and then let you make your opinion ... That’s how news is supposed to be reported. Somewhere along the line they forgot that. As opposed to a commentary from them." (Via FireDogLake) The French economic model doesn't work At least when it comes to exports and competitiveness. The IMF finds: "Recently, the export performance of France relative to its own past and relative to a major trading partner, Germany, deteriorated. That deterioration seems related to the geographical destination and product composition of trend exports. Faced with an increase in unit labor costs or in its terms of trade, France adjusts relatively less via price and wage changes, and more via employment changes. Given that SMIC convergence resulted in a significant increase in unit labor costs, foreign sector difficulties might be structural. Trade flows relevance and euro area policy constraints highlight the importance of structural reforms that increase markets flexibility." The whole paper is here. Slate's 'explainer' misses the boat Over at Slate, Nina Shen Rastogi answers why Indonesians don't swim (a combination of the fact they are not sea-faring people and, possibly, their Muslim belief about modesty which prevented them from going into the water uncovered) and why Indonesian ferries sink so often. She says that the combination of old ships, overcrowding and bad weather commonly results in maritime disaster: "Why are Indonesian ferries always sinking? Old ships, overcrowding, and bad weather. Sunday's accident was only the latest in a string of recent maritime disasters. Hundreds of ferries crisscross Indonesian waters every day, many of them old and less than seaworthy. Though ferries fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transport, Indonesia's far-flung geography—covering more than 3 million square miles—and lack of financial resources means that some are beyond the reach of government supervision. Ferry operators often overcrowd boats and sail during unsafe conditions. Corrupt harbor masters, who sometimes accept bribes in exchange for sailing permits, make matters worse. Finally, December through February is monsoon season in Indonesia, which means heavy rains, strong winds, and unpredictable currents." But there is also a more mundane explanation that takes into account the old ships, overcrowding and bad weather: to fit the excessive number of people on the boat, the the gates and doors are often not closed properly and the vessel takes on water (especially in inclement weather), increasing the likelihood of sinking and/or being unstable. Same thing happens a lot in the Philippines and Egypt. Simply respecting the capacity limits and operating the ferries as the are designed would save almost every ship -- and life. Being open to more children, and why its good for a marriage Quite often my wife and I get looks -- nasty, disdainful, exasperated looks -- when we trot our five kids out in public. A few people tell us how nice it is to see a large family, but for many 'five' is simply incomprehensible. I don't consider five children 'large' but by today's norms it seems so to many. Within my pro-life circles, our family of five children is seen as smallish and in my political circles it is considered obscenely big. Often we are asked if we plan to have more, to which I reply either "Thanks for inquiring about our sex life" or "It's not up to us"; the former offends, the latter hardly ever understood. And yet when I meet families with more than a dozen children, I have something of the same reaction that many people have when meeting our 'large' family: what freaks. I've interviewed many such (truly) large families and have watched the Duggars on TV and while I appreciate their openness to life, I often find myself wondering, "What are they thinking?" The answer is that they are thinking the same thing my wife and I are, but one a smaller scale, and the thinking is nicely captured in this Zenit interview with James and Kathleen Littleton, authors of Better by the Dozen, Plus Two. In it James Littleton says: "The key virtue of hope, which our beloved Pope Benedict is attempting to turn the world toward, is vital with regard to openness to life in marriage. Kathleen and I have met so many people who only needed one word of encouragement or one example to find the hope and courage to do what they already knew they wanted in their hearts, what God wanted, to be open, if so blessed, to having another child in their marriage. Their sense of joy, relief, and peace was evident when they shared or implied their decision to be open to bring another life into time and eternity. No, we are not saying that everyone needs to have as many children as physically possible without regard for their circumstances. But we are encouraging couples to be generous and re-evaluate the possibility of having another child if God grants this gift, to examine this in a prayerful way open to God's will, with a supernatural, faith-filled perspective." Which brings me to a personal essay in today's Globe and Mail, in which a mother writes about (of all things) having sex in the months after giving birth and the travails and strains of having a newborn in the house. I found this a nice explanation of how, contra the popular image and what often neglected-feeling fathers may believe, children bring couples closer together: "We know that a few months from now everything will feel easier again and we will cease to take for granted what we have in you: loving, kind and devoted husbands. Even now, when we see you cuddling the next generation that we have brought into this world, we almost forget the subtle imbalances that exist on a day-to-day basis. We are reminded how great this all is, what wonderful fathers you've turned into and how that in itself has made us love you exponentially more than we did before our offspring arrived. This shared challenge — of surviving parenthood together — has brought us closer to you in ways that we could never have imagined." Monday, January 12, 2009
So good he'll never be GOP leadership material I always wondered why there was both an Appropriations Committee and a Budget Committee in the House of Representatives. Andrew Roth at the Club for Growth blog notes that Rep. John Campbell (R, CA) has a "radical idea" -- abolishing the Appropriations Committee and he has introduced a bill to that end. (Thus far there are no co-sponsors.) Roth likes the idea because it could "decentralize the power that is so often abused on that committee." Roth asked Campbell for his rational and this was the "By abolishing the Appropriations Committee, each committee within the House would appropriate money within their specific jurisdiction; take for instance the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Under the new model, this committee would exercise authority over the State & Foreign Operations appropriations process. Responsibility for spending would then fall upon the shoulders of virtually every member of the House, and the days of the all powerful Appropriations panel would be over. The House Committee on the Budget would be further empowered to act as a check on the spending process to ensure that spending levels stay under or level with the authorized spending amounts. I don't claim that this will be the end of our spending woes, (that rests with the members of Congress the American people elect to represent them), but this is a solid step toward curtailing the wasteful Washington spenders and bring more transparency to the process." Rep. Campbell, one of my favourite Congressmen, is also leading a campaign entitled, "There Ought NOT be a Law," looking for "suggestions, ideas, and thoughts for the repeal of federal laws that are duplicative, wasteful, or just plain wrong." Sunday, January 11, 2009
Any given Sunday  Philadelphia Eagles at New York Giants: Giants favoured by four These are two very good squads with each team in the top ten in both offense and defense. Both teams are in the top six in scoring (Giants third, Eagles sixth) and both are among the five stingiest teams in points surrendered (Eagles fourth, Giants fifth). The Giants have the best run offense but Philly has the fourth best run defense, so there will be some great match-ups there. Philly's sixth-ranked pass offense is facing the eighth best pass defense. These teams are even, with the collective score over the past two games to prove it (51-50), although Philly's win at the Meadowlands in December was the first game the Giants were without WR Plaxico Burress after the wideout's run-in with the law; since then, the G-Men have adapted their game, although they did go 1-3 down the stretch (including the loss against Philly). Without a big receiving threat, opposing teams have crowded the box with an extra man to limit the Giants' running trio of Brandon Jacobs (when he's played), Derrick Ward and Ahmad Bradshaw. Philly likes to smother opposing offenses and blitz the QB plenty and their dangerous defense could very well limit Eli Manning's effectiveness. But for me it comes down to what the Eagles offense can do. Philadelphia will win if QB Donovan McNabb and RB Brian Westbrook have good games and if they don't, the Giants will win. The popular stat that football pundits are throwing around is that in the first game between the division rivals, Westbrook had just 59 yards (on 19 touches) and the Giants won; in December, Westbrook combined for 203 yards (on 39 touches) and the Eagles won. One can make too much of such numbers, but the success of the Eagles usually depends on whether Westbrook contributes. Philly upsets the Giants, who lost three of their final four games of the season. San Diego Chargers at Pittsburgh Steelers: Steelers favoured by six Pittsburgh is the stingiest team in the NFL; San Diego is the second best scoring team in the league. I wouldn't be surprised to see Philip Rivers find his targets and RB (and Mr. Everything Else) Darren Sproles rack up an ungodly number of total yards. But until they do, the Pittsburgh defense -- best overall, fewest points allowed, best pass defense and second best run defense -- should be favoured. The Bolts will miss LT, who has re-emerged as a big run threat in recent weeks and always forces opposing defenses to defend against the run game. Their own defense has improved in the last two months and the Steelers don't have much offense to speak of, but they score when they have to. I have my concerns about Big Ben and his concussion, but Bryan Leftwich is a competent replacement. While the Steelers' O-line gets lots of flock, part of that is because the lack of a strong running game and Ben Roethlisberger's propensity to hold the ball forever. Because of its dominant defense, the Steelers win but because of their suspect offense they don't cover. Yet, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Bolts win by 14, either. Saturday, January 10, 2009
The concert last night The AC/DC concert at the Rogers Center was pretty good -- and yes, I'm an AC/DC fan. The band really rocks and there is no indication that they've grown up at all in the past quarter century. Rock'n'roll is all about loud music and busty women to them as the giant and amply endowed inflatable doll employed as a prop for for Whole Lotta Rosie demonstrated. Lead guitarist Angus Young might have more energy than Mick Jagger, constantly moving around the stage. There was a silly strip-tease (by Young) and the cheesy inflatable Rosie, but overall the concert was a lot of fun. The encore of Highway to Hell and To Those About to Rock (We Salute You) (complete with cannon fire) was amazing. The Answer, the opening act, was pretty good, too; in fact, they received a fair amount of applause. The are a Led Zeppelin-like band (blues-rock) from Northern Ireland. This video of their rocking son Under the Sky is a pretty indication of their wider repertoire. I'll be getting their album when it comes out in March. Under the Sky by The Answer: Nut allergy nuts Joel Stein has a column in the Los Angeles Times that questions the hysteria over nut allergies. Love this line: "Since food allergies kill about as many people as lightning strikes each year, we probably don't need to ban peanuts from schools or put warnings on every product saying it was 'made in a factory that also has a break room where a guy named Dave often sneaks in a King Size Snickers despite this "diet" he says he's on'." To be fair, perhaps the reason there are so few nut allergy deaths is due to the precautions that schools are taking. That said, Stein is correct to observe there is a huge difference between a reaction and real anaphylactic shock. This tells you everything you need to know about the Tories' Tory The Toronto Star is happy that, presumably, he will finally have a seat at Queen's Park. When the Star supports a Progressive Conservative, you know the party has the wrong leader. Any given Saturday  Baltimore Ravens at Tennessee Titans: Titans favoured by three Even when the Titans were 10-0 they appeared fairly vulnerable to me and at the risk of being deliberately provocative, they are the team least likely to win the Super Bowl of the final eight (including the Arizona Cardinals). They have a solid, game-calling QB in Kerry Collins and strong defense but they don't make the big plays that put opposing teams off their game plan or suddenly change the complexion of a game. They beat the Ravens 13-10 earlier this season but won on a late, long drive that turned on a blown call by the referee. Since then, rookie QB Joe Flacco has matured and developed into the kind of potentially big play-making quarterback that Collins is not, although he was unimpressive in the Ravens win over the Miami Dolphins last week, completing just nine of 23 passes. There should be some great line of scrimmage battles today. The Ravens have the fourth best running game and the Titans have the seventh best defense against the run. The Ravens O-line is great they are running with the ball. The Titans have the seventh best running game and the Ravens have the third best run defense. If the Titans fall behind or can't get their run game going, Collins is facing the second best pass defense and FS Ed Reed is a big theft threat with 10 picks in the last six games. The Titans ranked ninth in pass defense but have some favourable individual match-ups with BCs Cortland Finnegan and Nick Harper and safeties Chris Hope and Michael Griffen. Tenny is favoured but they are going down at home. Arizona Cardinals at Carolina Panthers: Panthers favoured by 9.5 The Panthers are favoured and they should win. But Arizona has so many offensive weapons that they could make it fairly close: Kurt Warner has more targets to throw to than he can use (although they might not have WR Anquan Boldin) and last week the Cards surprisingly sprung the running game on the Atlanta Falcons last week. Carolina's defense is not as stout as it was early this season and the Cards might be able to exploit the mid-ranked D. Still, you gotta like the Panthers: WR Steve Smith is one of the biggest offensive threats in the game and they have Muhsin Muhammad who caught more than 900 yards on 65 catches as QB Jake Delhomme's second option. Carolina also has a great running duo in DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart. Delhomme has the best post-season passer rating (95) of the eight remaining QBs. Football pundits are pointing to the fact the Cards seem to have trouble traveling to the eastern time zone. I don't put a lot of credence into their 0-5 record in the EST this year on its won (smallish sample size), but 2-19 over their past 21 in the EST is indication of serious weakness. The Panthers have a great O-line with OT Jeff Otah and OG Geoff Hangartner both healthy. Warner is so quick, it doesn't appear to matter what shape the Cards O-line is in. I'm picking Carolina to to win but not cover although I won't be the least bit surprised to see Arizona pull off the upset. No one knows what to do about the economy -- at least no one in power Simon Heffer in the Daily Telegraph: "In fact, even Mr Darling, the Chancellor, admitted this week that he really didn't have a clue what to do to put our economy back on the straight and narrow. Can we be surprised? He may have held various financial posts in government and in opposition, but usually in the shadow of Gordon Brown, and before that he was a leftie Edinburgh lawyer. I am not sure he can even read a balance sheet. I certainly wouldn't put money on many of his Cabinet colleagues being able to do so. Look down the list and try to gauge their hands-on business experience – try to gauge any real understanding about how wealth is created – and you pretty much draw a blank. If you ran a public limited company, would you ask Hazel Blears to join the board? Would you want Jacqui Smith chairing your remuneration committee? Would you be happy for Lord Rumba of Rio to sign off your accounts, or little Miliband to mastermind your product development? Quite. To make matters worse, the Treasury has been politicised since 1997, so officials say what they think their masters want to hear, rather than what they should hear. The unthinkable is never thought. Economists with an alternative view are ignored and marginalised. And of course, the Opposition hasn't a clue either, or the time to have one between skiing holidays. Only one thing will give us an economic revival. It is, and I apologise for being boring, the transfer of money from the client state to the productive and private sector of the economy. This means spending cuts and tax cuts. Everything else is simply propaganda." But politics isn't about solutions; it is about vote-getting, so propaganda is better than effective policy. Headline says it all But read Daniel Finkelstein's Thursday (London) Times column, "Israel acts because the world won't defend it." Few friends of freedom in Ottawa and losing the ones we had Gerry Nicholls points out that Stephen Harper is not the defender of freedom of speech that he once was. First it was abandoning the fight against gag laws (to support only more draconian limits on campaign donations) and turning a blind eye to election black out rules, and in the last year defending the notorious human rights commissions that he once opposed. Harper was asked by Maclean's in a wide-ranging interview "Will the government amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prevent unwarranted interferences in free expression by human rights commissions?" His reply: "The government has no plans to do so. We’re certainly aware of the issue. My understanding —- we’ve been monitoring this closely—I think you’ll actually see there’s been some modification of behaviour on the part of the Canadian human rights commissions. The most egregious cases right now are mostly at the provincial level. And it is a very tricky issue of public policy because obviously, as we’ve seen, some of these powers can be abused. But they do exist for valid reasons, which is obviously to prevent public airwaves from being used to disseminate hate against vulnerable members of our society. That’s a valid objective. It’s probably the case that we haven’t got the balance right, but I’m not sure the government today has any answer on what an appropriate balance would be." Then it is time for a new government. I'm pretty sure Harper is admitting that he is not up to the job. Friday, January 09, 2009
Blogging will return tomorrow This morning I went to the funeral of Fr. Garry McCarthy, CSSp, the assistant pastor at St. Rita's R.C. church during my childhood in Woodstock. This evening I'm going to an AC/DC concert. Thursday, January 08, 2009
Four and down 4. According to Pro Football Weekly, Carolina Panthers QBJake Delhomme has "a playoff passer rating of 95.0 that was better than any of the other 11 quarterbacks entering this year’s second season." Better than Eli Manning after his phenomenal 2008 Super Bowl run? Peyton Manning? Kurt Warner, a former Super Bowl MVP? Ben Roethlisberger? 3. Recently fired New York Jets coach Eric Mangini, who is just 37-years-old, has been hired by the Cleveland Browns as their head coach, returning to the team that he had been ball boy and later PR intern for in the 1990s. I am not sure Mangini is the right guy for the Browns but its a neat story. I didn't like his handling of Brett Favre for the Gang Green this past season but he did lead a 9-7 team. He is more of a defensive-minded coach (serving as a defensive backs coach and defensive co-ordinator under New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick, himself a former Browns coach), but the Browns, who didn't score an offensive touchdown in its final six games, need a new approach to offense. Again, I don't think Mangini is the guy. 2. I think that whoever becomes the next coach of the Denver Broncos should hire recently fired Browns head coach Romeo Crennel as defensive co-ordinator or a defensive coach. Since the late 1980s, Crennel has been a defensive line coach for the New York Giants, New York Jets, and New England Patriots and defensive co-ordinator for the Cleveland Browns and Pats. The 8-8 Broncos missed the playoffs because they allowed 448 points -- the third worst in the NFL. This might not happen if the Broncos bring in a defensive co-ordinator or coach (defensive coordinators Raheem Morris of Tampa Bay and Leslie Frazier of Minnesota come to mind) as new head coach and want to impose their own system. 1. Lee Jenkins reminds SI.com readers that the banged up San Diego Chargers played last year's playoffs injured, too. Big difference this year is that QB Philip Rivers is not among the players missing games or playing hurt. Three and out 3. I'm with Keith Law that the Oakland A's made a great move signing free agent 1B/DH Jason Giambi. I'm a bit biased -- Giambi is one of my favourite players. On the whole, his 2008 slash stats were decent (247/373/502) but his OPS (on-base percentage and slugging percentage) was the 12th best in the American League (876). Casual fans see his batting average in the mid-200s and think he is a shell of his old self, which he is, but even that shell is impressive. As long as he doesn't need to play defense, where Giambi does a passable imitation of a pilon, he adds a lot to the A's lineup. Oakland needs to improve its on-base percentage and add extra base hits, which Giambi adds (19 doubles and 32 homers in 458 ABs.) Giambi is precisely what the A's need and at a reasonable price: 2. Sporting News Today says the Boston Red Sox are going to sign Rocco Baldelli, a former outfielder who plays a lot like Vernon Wells but who can no play everyday due to health condition originally diagnosed as a mitochondrial disorder. He can't play regularly but should be able to make one heck of a fine fourth outfielder and is a decent insurance policy in the case of another injury to DH David Ortiz. 1. After spending 20 years with the Atlanta Brave, southpaw starter John Smoltz has signed a one-year deal with the Red Sox. It will be really strange to see him in a Red Sox uniform. What I'm reading 1. Imagining The Future: Science And American Democracy by Yuval Levin. He shows that conservatives are not 'anti-science' and that science is a means not an end. 2. Outliers: The Story of Success by Malcolm Gladwell. I might post about it later but for now I just want to say that Gladwell is fine in small doses or in interviews but it is pretty clear reading him in larger chunks that he cherry picks his evidence. 3. "Election Review, Part 1," by Jay Cost & Sean Trende at RealClearPolitics. 4. "21st century regulation: Discovering better solutions for enduring problems," a collection of five working papers by Andrew Perraut, Bruce Yandle, Gary E. Marchant, Henry Wray, Richard Williams, Scott Farrow of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. 5. "The Economic Effects of Increasing British Columbia’s Minimum Wage," a Fraser Institute study by Keith Godin and Niels Veldhuis. The criminals The Manhattan Institutes's Heather Mac Donald takes apart the New York Times' take on crime -- which for the writers at the paper is mostly about race (isn't that racist?) -- and I love this gem: In the Times’s view, prison is something that just happens to black males in our society. 'Once these young men become entangled in the criminal justice system,' the Times writes, 'they are typically marginalized and shut out of the job market for life.' Never mind that you actually have to commit a crime before the criminal justice system 'entangles' you." Of course, to a certain mindset, people are putty in the hands of the impersonal forces of a dog-eat-dog world, where the dogs doing the eating have control over their own actions but no one else does. Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, RIP The founding editor of First Things, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus has passed away. Keep him and the First Things family in your prayers. I hope to have more later but for now read current FT editor Joseph Bottum's notice this morning, Peter Wehner's tribute in The Corner, and John Podhoretz's piece at Commentary's website. Podhoretz noted Fr. Neuhaus's most radical editorial decision, a symposium that questioned the legitimacy of the American regime, a legitimacy called into question by the long legal tolerance of abortion in that country. That symposium was deliberately provocative and it would be a shame if that is all he (and the journal he guided at the time) is remembered for. He was so much more. So much more. 50 years of popular music in one sentence By Marc Haynes in McSweeney's International: The Beatles, "I Want to Hold Your Hand" I want to do it with you. Marvin Gaye, "Let's Get It On" I want to do it with you. Led Zeppelin, "Whole Lotta Love" I want to do it with you. James Blunt, "You're Beautiful" I want to do it with you. Sir Mix-a-Lot, "Baby Got Back" I want to do it. Elvis Presley, "Hound Dog" You're doing it with everyone. R. Kelly, "I Believe I Can Fly" I believe I want to do it with you. Patsy Cline, "Crazy" I want to do it with you so much I'm going fucking nuts. Frank Sinatra, "Strangers in the Night" I'm drunk and I want to do it with you. The White Stripes, "My Doorbell" Using metaphor, I want to do it with you. Little Richard, "Good Golly Miss Molly" I'm doing it with Miss Molly, and she's totally into it. Duran Duran, "Rio" I'd love to do that chick dancing on the sand. The Beatles, "Why Don't We Do It in the Road?" I'd like to do it with you right now. Carly Simon, "You're So Vain" We used to do it, but then you did it with someone else, and now I'm not going to do it with you, although I wish we were still doing it. Pulp, "Common People" I once met a stuck-up European who wanted to do it with me. Radiohead, "Creep" I'm filled with self-loathing, and, though outwardly I hate everything you represent, I want to do it with you. Kate Bush, "Wuthering Heights" I'm an 18th-century fictional character and I want to do it with another 18th-century fictional character. Bob Dylan, "Blowin' in the Wind" The Man is currently doing it to you. Elvis Presley, "Jailhouse Rock" Incarcerated men will on occasion do it with each other. Meat Loaf, "I Would Do Anything for Love (But I Won't Do That)" Hey! You won't believe what this one chick said while I was doing it with her! Kings of Leon, "Sex on Fire" I did it with you, and now it hurts when I pee. Céline Dion, "My Heart Will Go On" Even your death has not stopped me wanting to do it with you. AC/DC, "You Shook Me All Night Long" We did it yesterday. Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Four and down 4. The Carolina Panthers might have some trouble against the Arizona Cardinals this weekend if the Cards are able to stop the running tandom of DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart by keeping safeties Antrel Rolle and Adrian Wilson near the line of scrimmage (as they often do) as part of an under-rated run defense. The problem for the Cards is that WR Steve Smith will probably keep them honest. If QB Jake Delhomme has any trouble finding Smith, the Cards defense can cheat a bit to jam up Williams and Stewart which will give Kurt Warner the chance to beat the Panthers and take his team to the NFC championship. There are a lot of ifs for that to happen, but it is not impossible to see a path to a Cards-Giants or Cards-Eagles NFC championship game. 3. The Denver Broncos are interested in having Dallas Cowboys offensive co-ordinator and asssistant head coach Jason Garrett fill their coaching vacancy. As a fan of the Cowboys (the Steelers are my favourite team but I really like the Boys, too) there is nothing I'd like to see more than Garrett leave town. Considering the talent at his disposal, even admitting the injury to Marion Barber hurt them down the stretch, it is a wonder that the Boys were not a better scoring team; 17 other NFL teams scored more points than Dallas. Heck the 6-10 Green Bay Packers scored 57 more points than the Cowboys. Dallas has QB Tony Romo, WRs TO and Roy Williams, TE Jason Witten, RBs Marion Barber, Felix Jones and Tashard Choice (why wasn't he used earlier?) -- that's a lot of talent, the kind of talent that gets you through injuries to Barber and Jones. Garrett should be held responsible for not getting more out of them. I'm not sure Garrett will help the Broncs but at least he won't hurt the Boys. Considering the weaknesses in the Denver defense, however, they should probably give a closer look at Tampa Bay Buccaneers defensive coordinator Raheem Morris or New York Giants defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo. 2. New Orleans Saints QB Drew Brees was my pre-season favourite to win the MVP. He didn't mostly because the Saints were an 8-8 team that missed the playoffs. But Brees did run away with the Offensive Player of the Year award over the guy who did win the MVP, Indianapolis Colts QB Peyton Manning. Brees came within one medium-length pass from breaking Dan Marino's single-season yardage record, ending the season with 5069, only the second QB to surpass the 5000 yard mark. Brees displayed an amazing arm all year and was very clearly the best offensive weapon any team had in the league, even if he was not more valuable to his team than Manning. Aside from the 5069 yards, Brees tied for the lead league in TDs (34), was fourth in passer rating (96.2) and his 84 passes of 20 or more yards was 18 more than anyone else had. 1. Why didn't Kurt Warner get a single vote for Offensive Player of the Year? Brees got 22 votes (out of 50), followed by Manning and Minnesota Vikings RB Adrian Peterson with nine votes each. SD Chargers QB Philip Rivers got six votes, Carolina Panthers RB DeAngelo Williams had two and Atlanta RB Michael Turner and Panthers WR Steve Smith received one each. But none for Warner. Warner was second in total yards (4,583), third in TDs (30), third in passer rating (96.9), third in passes over 20 yards (62), and second in both pass attempts and completion percentage. He led his team to the playoffs (9-6 to win the NFC West). Warner came into training battling Matt Leinart for the starting job and ended the season as one of the best QBs. Taking nothing away from those who did get votes (except maybe Smith), I don't understand how Warner didn't get any. Three and out 3. I don't get it -- New York Yankee starting southpaw Andy Pettitte said no to a one-year, $10 million deal and the Yankee front office strategy, according to the New York Post, will be to make a lower offer. I doubt that's true, but who knows. 2. I like this Philadelphia Phillies move: signing 2B Marcus Giles to a minor league deal worth $600,000. Nice insurance policy if Chase Utley's rehab from hip surgery doesn't work out as planned. Giles was 229/304/317 but that was in an extreme pitcher's park in San Diego so it would not be surprising to see him do about 40-50 points better in each of his slash stats in the bandbox the Phillies play in. 1. Which one is it? The Boston Globe: "Teixeira: 'In the back of my mind, the Yankees were always the top'." The New York Times: "Teixeira’s wife made the call: Yankees." The tax system's progressivity A CBO report shows the tax rate (all taxes, not just income taxes) that each group of taxpayers: Lowest quintile: 4.3 percent Second quintile: 9.9 percent Middle quintile: 14.2 percent Fourth quintile: 17.4 percent Percentiles 81-90: 20.3 percent Percentiles 91-95: 22.4 percent Percentiles 96-99: 25.7 percent Percentiles 99.0-99.5: 29.7 percent Percentiles 99.5-99.9: 31.2 percent Percentiles 99.9-99.99: 32.1 percent Top 0.01 Percentile: 31.5 percent So when the Left is fighting for a more progressive tax system are they fighting for the 99.9-99.99 percentile who pays comparably more than the top 0.01? Just wondering. The truth about the road less traveled Jim Rosenberg quoted at Overcoming Bias: "Two roads diverged in the woods. I took the one less traveled, and had to eat bugs until Park rangers rescued me." Wish I wrote this David Harsanyi looks at the advanced age of the average Congressman and has little wonderful paragraph: "Thirty years after Ted Kennedy griped about Ronald Reagan's advanced age, the man serves as a 76-year-old nine-term senator recovering from brain tumor surgery. Really, is there no one else available in the state of Massachusetts who can drop his r's and vote dependably Maoist?" Stanley Fish's list of the 10 best movies of all time Stanley Fish explains why he chooses the ones he does on his New York Times blog, but here is the list: 1. The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) 2. Sunset Blvd. (1950) 3. Double Indemnity (1944) 4. Shane (1953) 5. Red River (1948) 6. Raging Bull (1980) 7. Vertigo (1958) 8. Groundhog Day (1993) 9. Meet Me in St. Louis (1944) 10. A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1945) As one commenter said: "You might have titled the list 'The 8 Best American Movies from When I Was Young and 2 that Slipped In Somehow'." As for me, I've only seen Groundhog Day, although I'd bet my 18-year-old son, a movie buff, has seen at least eight of ten on the list. MPs can't handle more than one issue at a time That seems to be the message of Conservative MP Mark Warawa (C, Langley) who said that while he is pro-life, he doesn't think now is the time to deal with the issue. Warawa said, "Canadians want us to focus on the economy." Focus doesn't mean 'deal with exclusively' but if Warawa is being honest, then I hope that he (and those who share his view) will support my proposal: a federal law that requires only one piece of legislation to be considered at any time. After all, if MPs don't have the time/attention span/intelligence/staff assistance/whatever to handle the issue of the economy and abortion, they might not have the resources to deal with the economy and Senate reform or the economy and the environment or the economy and criminal justice issues. To me, it sounds like those high school students that complain about assignments with close due dates; tough, its part of the job. Or it's all an excuse not to deal with the issue of abortion. Just say no -- to a surgeon general Michael D. Tanner at Cato's blog: "[T]he bigger question is why do we need a surgeon general in the first place? After all, can anyone name our current (acting) surgeon general? In reality, the surgeon general is little more than the “national nanny,” hectoring us to stop smoking, lose weight, exercise more, and never ever go out without a condom. I’ve been flipping through my copy of the Constitution, and I can’t find the authorization for the federal government to take taxpayers’ money to establish an office to tell us how we should live our lives. There are plenty of private groups that are fully capable of instructing us on how to be healthy, wealthy and wise without the government’s getting involved." The future of the Islamic world... Is full of failed states. So says Spengler at Asia Times. He concludes his pessimistic but realistic piece by saying: "The lights are going out across the Middle East; states are failing, and it is not in the power of the West to make them whole again. All the strategic calculations that busied policy analysts and diplomats are changing, and the West has a very short time to learn the rules of a new and terrible game." The reason that Spengler might be correct is that contra the neoconservative claim that democracy can be spread around like butter, democracy needs a cultural and socio-political framework that is alien to most Islamic cultures: rule of law, private property rights, some tolerance of differences, etc... And pluralism and one-man one-vote cannot take root in a culture where half the population (women) are treated like second-class citizens -- or worse. Isn't his 15 minutes up yet Joe the Plumber will go to Israel to cover the war in Gaza for pjtv.com and to tell the story of "Average Joes" in that part of the world during the bombings there. C'mon. Joe the Plumber is a complete fraud: he isn't named Joe, isn't a plumber and is fighting for taxpayers but he owes $1200 in back taxes (among other creditors he owes). Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Four and down 4. Interesting little fact: pre-season odds that the San Diego Chargers would win the Super Bowl were 10:1 and today they are 9:1. That's pretty close. Pittsburgh Steelers were 25:1 and are now 5:1. New York Giants are now the favourites (5:2) with the Steelers and Carolina Panthers 5:1. 3. It is noteworthy that neither of the pre-season Super Bowl favourites, the Dallas Cowboys or New England Patriots made the playoffs. (The Boys missed by half a game, the Pats missed on the tie-breaker.) The two biggest Super Bowl long-shots, the Miami Dolphins and Atlanta Falcons, both made the playoffs, although they were eliminated in the wild card round. 2. Atlanta Falcons coach Mike Smith edged out Miami Dolphins coach Mike Sparano -- two rookie coaches that took their long-shot teams to the playoffs -- and finished 1-2 in the Associated Press 2008 NFL Coach of the Year award. Smith received 23.5 votes and Sparano got 22.5 votes. Tennessee's Jeff Fisher recieved four votes for guiding his team to a league best 14-2 record and Bill Belichick of New England got one for leading his Tom Brady-less team to an 11-5 record. I wouldn't have been able to decide between Smith and Sparano so the closeness of vote is just, as are the votes for Fisher and Belichick. 1. Pittsburgh Steelers LB James Harrison won the Associated Press 2008 Defensive Player of the Year award with 22 votes over Dallas' DeMarcus Ware who had 13 votes. Harrison had 16 sacks (a team record) as part of the new incarnation of the Steel Curtain; DeMarcus lead the league in sacks (20) and almost broke the NFL single season record. Baltimore Ravens safety Ed Reed received eight votes, Tennessee Titans defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth had five and another Steeler, safety Troy Polamalu, got two. I thought Harrison wouldn't win because the Steeler vote would be divided and that it would be difficult to decide who was the standout among a great defensive unit (Harrison, Polamalu and OLB LaMarr Woodley). I'm glad Harrison won and he was the first to say, it is really a recognition of what whole defensive team does. Three and out 3. Sporting News Today reports that the rumours of the San Francisco Giants signing Manny Ramirez are incorrect but that the Texas Rangers are exploring adding the homerun-hitting right-fielder, who would positively smash the ball in Arlington. I sort of like the move, but still wonder why far-out-of-it teams make $20 million/per season additions. SNT also reports that ManRam's agent Scott Boras is talking about a five-year, $90 million deal, which is probably too lengthly of a deal for a guy in his late 30s and with his attitude. 2. Aging Andy Pettitte did the New York Yankees a big favour by refusing to take a $6 million pay cut and sign a one-year, $10 million deal. Pettitte is going to fall apart sometime and considering all the other investments, the Bronx Bombers have made for 2009 and beyond, it would be sad if they came up short with the southpaw hitting a wall halfway through the season, surrendering runs every other inning, leaving games early and taxing the bullpen. I have been a big Any Pettitte fan, but it is time for him to retire or mentor a staff elsewhere. 1. The Tampa Bay Rays are serious about contending again next year and made a big move to prove it. Considering that there should be some regression for a team that exceeded expectations top to bottom, the signing of Pat Burrell to a modest two-year, $16 million deal to play DH (and probably a little RF) is a great move. Burrell has averaged 31 homeruns and 99 ribbies over the past four seasons and is great addition to the middle of the lineup. Hope and change we can all believe in Government Executive reports: "House Democrats tentatively plan to repeal term limits for committee chairmanships when the 111th Congress convenes on Tuesday, according to senior House aides. The result would remove one of the signature reforms from the 12-year House Republican rule and likely would cause angry debate during the usually ceremonial opening day festivities. Although the prospective rules change has been actively pushed by the barons of the House since Democrats regained control two years ago, the elimination of the six-year term limits would not necessarily return the House to the bygone era in which committee chairs ruled without accountability. Among other things, Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has been a more assertive Speaker than her Democratic predecessors, and she has positioned herself to assure that committee leaders are responsive to her views and those of the Democratic Caucus." So to ensure 'accountability' committee chairs must answer to one, all-powerful Speaker? That, I'm sure, will work just fine. (HT: Club for Growth blog) The Democrats' scandal non-problem Writing in USA Today, Jonah Goldberg provides a short history of corruption and scandal for both sides of the political aisle: "Take the GOP's "corruption problem." The Democrats retook Congress in 2006 largely on the strength of popular dismay with Republican scandals. Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff dominated the news, as did allegations of impropriety and corruption on the part of then-Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and confirmed cases of criminality on the part of Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Just before the '06 election, Florida congressman Mark Foley was alleged to have "preyed" on young male congressional pages via online chats. The following summer, Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho was accused of using gay-bathroom Morse code to signal to an undercover cop in the next stall that he'd like a wingman on a trip to funky town. These stories fueled the corruption narrative leading to the Democratic sweep last November. Sounds bad, and it was. But it's worth remembering that Democrats had plenty of scandals of their own. In 2004, New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey resigned after the married father was alleged to have hired an unqualified boy toy to run his Homeland Security Department. In 2006, Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana was caught with nearly $100,000 in his freezer. That same year, Rep. Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island rammed his Ford Mustang into a Capitol Hill security checkpoint and, faster than his dad could say "Chappaquiddick," checked himself into rehab for a pill addiction. Last spring, New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer, a self-righteous anti-corruption zealot, resigned after it was revealed he had been using a call-girl service. Then the Democrat who replaced Foley was brought down for allegedly firing his mistress. Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards was caught cheating on his cancer-stricken wife. Charles Rangel, the Democratic dinosaur in charge of the House Ways and Means Committee, is embroiled in a series of allegations of self-dealing corruption. And now, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has bowed out as President-elect Barack Obama's choice to be Commerce secretary thanks to an unfolding investigation into possible pay-for-play deal of less than Blagospheric proportions." Of course, for the Dems, it doesn't matter; if you have the right views on race, abortion, the poor, the rich, government spending, gun control, gay rights, etc..., it doesn't matter what you do in your personal life or in office, as long as your votes are lined up the right way. If you find yourself on the wrong side of the ledger, then every single foible (and real corruption and immoral behaviour) gets repeated. Being liberal means never having to say you're sorry; being conservative means having to prostrate oneself forever. A thought on banning political donations The Toronto Star reports that the city of Toronto is considering banning corporate and union donations to candidates for municipal offices. Here's a deal: if the city doesn't make bylaws that affect businesses and unions, businesses and unions shouldn't be allowed to donate to political campaigns, but if the city is going to make rules that affect these entities, they should be allowed to donate. (So, by the way, should charities.) Ditto what Nordlinger said Jay Nordlinger from his latest Impromptus column: "The similarities between yesterday’s anti-anti-Communists and today’s anti-anti-Islamofascists would make a very good essay — perhaps by David Pryce-Jones or Norman Podhoretz. Of course, many of today’s anti-anti-Islamofascists were yesterday’s anti-anti-Communists." Great point, obvious to all who pay attention closely to such things. The anti-anti-communists were wrong about almost everything before, so how much should we listen to them today? In many cases a better name for them would be anti-American. And I'd love to read Pryce-Jones or Podhoretz write about the anti-anti-communists/anti-anti-Islamofascists similarities/links. Bailout Nation The Washington Post reports that art museums and opera houses are looking for a bailout. Tyler Cowen responds: "Of course they want a bailout but this is for me not a priority. Given the new distribution of wealth, arguably we need more culture for lower-income people and less culture for the rich. I don't think the old distribution of wealth is coming back anytime soon. It's something to watch when the egalitarian and elitist tendencies of modern liberalism clash so strongly. When it comes to high culture it's like this: "I don't think they should have so much money, but I sure like what they spend their money on." Yet if deflationary pressures are going to benefit lower class individuals with jobs, something has to give and that is, in part, the discretionary arts spending of the wealthy." On peace in the Middle East David Brooks writes about the end of land-for-peace in Israel: "For several years, Israelis and Palestinians played the land-for-peace game. Each side engaged in a series of elaborate maneuvers designed to get the best possible deal when it came time to negotiate a final status agreement. But when Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran became leading players in the Middle East struggle, that land-for-peace game was suspended. A different game with different rules was begun. This new game is not oriented toward a final agreement. The extremist groups believe in the eventual extermination of Israel. They’re not interested in a handshake on the White House lawn. In this new game, both sides seek the destruction of the other, but neither has the power to achieve it. They are engaged in a struggle that has no near-term practical end. The extremists’ goal is to kill as many Jews as possible and wait for God (or Iran) to kill the rest. Israel’s goal is to restrain the brazenness of the extremists until their movement somehow burns itself out or is destroyed from within Arab society. Israel’s realistic immediate goal is not to achieve some permanent resolution, but to merely suppress terrorism week by week and month by month." He then goes all psychological on the reader. But the aforementioned paragraphs remind of Irving Kristol's quip about Israel-Palestinian question, that the conflict is not a problem to solved but a condition to be endured. However, it is harder to endure as weapons become bigger and more dangerous, and the hatreds become more pronounced. Evidence of Obama the centrist I'm getting pilloried over noting that (at least on economic issues) Barack Obama might not be as left-wing as conservative critics fear. About 40% of his stimulus package will be tax cuts for workers and businesses. Nice move and even if it doesn't lead to an immediate recovery, it does mean less money will be wasted on government spending schemes. The tax cut proposal shows pragmatism on the economic file that many Republicans and conservatives might not have expected, and no doubt the Left will not be happy. Now if only he would show such a spirit of compromise (the good kind) on social issues, such as abortion. Monday, January 05, 2009
AGS revisited Arizona Cardinals 30, Atlanta Falcons 24: The Falcons were favoured but I liked the Cards because of Kurt Warner's experience -- and didn't like Atlanta's inexperience. Michael Turner who had over 500 more rushing yards than the entire Cards team during the season was limited to just 42 yards on 18 carries and no yardage in the second half. The Cards established a decent running game with RB Edgerrin James getting 73 yards on 16 carries. Kurt Warner had a good game -- 19 for 32 for 271 yards and 2 TDs -- compared to the woeful looking rookie for Atlanta, Matt Ryan: 26 of 40 for 199 yards, 2 TDs and 2 picks. Warner was brilliant, throwing the ball away quickly when under pressure, whereas Ryan looked lost. Arizona had over a 100 yards more offense than Atlanta. Cards lost WR Anquan Boldin in the second quarter when he strained his left hamstring on a 71-yard touchdown play; he is questionable for this weekend's game against the Carolina Panthers. San Diego Chargers 23, Indianapolis Colts 17 (OT): Colts were favoured, I said flip a coin and chose Indy in the end. LaDainian Tomlinson played a quarter and a half with a detached tendon, wasn't all that great and left the game after 25 yards and 1 TD on five carries. And then RB Darren Sproles took over with 328 all purpose yards: 105 rushing (23 carries), 45 receiving (five catches), 72 on punt returns (3 carries), 106 kickoff returns (on four carries). Sproles also got the game winning TD. Indy's Peyton Manning did what he could (25/42, 310 yards, 1 TD) but it is hard to do much when the opposing team's kicker is consistently getting the ball within the 20 yard-marker, and often within the ten. Chargers' punter Mike Scifres had six punts for a 51.7 yard net average, placing them on the Indy 10, 15, 3, 5, 9, 1. Manning is good, but those are some demanding drives to even get within field goal position. Philip Rivers led a 7-play, 30 yard drive in a minute and 17 seconds to put Nate Kaeding in field goal range (26 yards) to score the game-tying field goal with 33 second left in the game. And as thrilling as the game was, I hate the NFL overtime rules where the first point wins. As SI's Peter King notes, the season's MVP, QB Peyton Manning, never got to touch the ball in OT. How is that fair? San Diego showed why they are a tough team to beat, their 8-8 regular season record notwithstanding. Baltimore Ravens 27, Miami Dolphins 9: I predicted the Ravens would beat the three-point spread and they did with the help of five Fins turnovers, including four Chad Pennington interceptions. Somewhat surprising considering Miami gave up just 12 turnovers in 16 regular season games. Ravens defense might prove unbeatable the rest of the way out, with FS Ed Reed grabbing two picks and letting another sail through his hands and unheralded SS Jim Leonhard with six tackles, an interception and a half-sack. Philadelphia Eagles 26, Minnesota Vikings 14: I hedged a bit saying if NT Pat Williams played, the Vikes would win. He didn't and they didn't. The game was close until halfway through the fourth, when RB Brian Westbrook scored on a 71-yard pass play to allow Philly to take the lead and never look back. Donovan McNabb played well (23/34, 300 yards, a TD and a pick) and the Eagles defense played even better. Their blitzes pressured Tarvaris Jackson (15/35, 164 yard, no TDs, one pick) although their D-line let Adrian Peterson get 83 yards and 2 TDs on 20 carries. Eagles are tough to beat when they are on -- and their were on during Sunday's game. Three and out 3. Tim Kurkjian at ESPN.com has a long story on why the New York Yankees will be worth watching. They are always worth watching. He concludes with a fascinating tidbit about the clubhouse: "There are even questions about the aforementioned home clubhouse in the new stadium. One Yankee recently whispered that it's too big, each locker is like a little apartment, with too many amenities; he worried the players won't ever talk to each other." 2. The Seattle Mariners have hired Tom Tango, one of the best of the statistical analysts, as a consultant. His The Book: Playing the Percentages in Baseball, is excellent and his blog is essential for baseball fans. 1. If he's healthy, the signing of OF Milton Bradley by the Chicago Cubs for $30 million over three years, is a great deal. Bradley led the AL in OBP in 2008 (slash stats: 321/436/563). Those kind of numbers make his occasional behavioural problems tolerable. The Cubs, who desperately need a power threat from the left, can put this switch hitter to good use although probably in a platoon with Kosuke Fukudome. Terry Teachout's 25 favourite classical music recordings Here. Pretty decent list for someone looking to start a classical musical collection, or to fill some holes. Joke From the Adam Smith Institute blog: Q: What's the difference between mathematics and economics? A: Mathematics is incomprehensible; economics just doesn't make any sense. Obama: the abortion (and euthanasia) president The Washington Times reports at the end of a story on how social conservatives are going to fight President-elect Barack Obama's pick for #3 at Justice (Thomas J. Perrelli, a lawyer who aided the effort to remove Terry Schiavo's feeding tube) that Dawn Johnsen, a law professor and former legal director of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, is to head the Office of Legal Council. That's a lot of culture of death appointments. Senator Franken? I'm stunned that Al Franken is set to become Minnesota's junior senator. Kathy Shaidle at her Examiner.com page explains all the reasons I thought Minnesota voters would have thought better of it -- the distasteful jokes, the lies, the questionable financial dealings -- and why they will certainly one day be embarrassed by him. What the heck? Former Congressman and Bill Clinton chief of staff Leon Panetta has reportedly been chosen to head up the CIA. The Washington Post says that he has "little previous intelligence experience" which is a nice way of describing his time sitting in on some intelligence meetings as chief of staff. Sunday, January 04, 2009
Famous errors from famous economists Tyler Cowen is asked by a reader: "[Name] 10 (or more) most famous mistakes in economics. Viner on costs and Feldstein on Social Security come to mind. Malthus? Not talking about old vs. new economics, but simple analytical errors and bad predictions." His reply: "That's a good start. What else might be listed? Just to circumvent various hobby horses in the comments section, let's avoid Marx and Marxists, Keynes, and the last twenty years. 1. Kenneth Arrow confusing risk subdivision and risk multiplication, in arguing that government should use a riskless rate of discount. 2. The Cambridge, Mass. economists having to admit, finally, that capital reswitching could be quite a general phenomenon (though is it, really?) 3. Ricardo's prediction that most of national output would end up going to the landlords. 4. Paul Samuelson praising the economic performance of Soviet central planning in his Principles text. 5. 93 percent of all proclamations made about the demand for money in macroeconomics. 6. The more exaggerated claims about the Laffer Curve. 7. Various claims that the Fed should have let the money supply fall during the Great Depression. 8. Jevons's claim that England (or was it the world?) would soon run out of coal. 9. Welfare analysis done in overlapping generations models (the standard welfare theorems do not generally hold in such models). And dare I offer up a controversial pick? 10. Those who think that the difference between "capital" and "ideas" in a Solow growth model is actually well-defined." While Cowen grants Malthus should be on the list, he might not be guilty of bad analysis as much as having lived at precisely the wrong time, as I explained in The Interim last year. And most of his modern followers are not economists but botanists, entomologists and environmentalists. '40 facts about sleep...' From the National Sleep Research Project, here are some of the most interesting: * The record for the longest period without sleep is 18 days, 21 hours, 40 minutes during a rocking chair marathon. The record holder reported hallucinations, paranoia, blurred vision, slurred speech and memory and concentration lapses. * Anything less than five minutes to fall asleep at night means you're sleep deprived. The ideal is between 10 and 15 minutes, meaning you're still tired enough to sleep deeply, but not so exhausted you feel sleepy by day. * A new baby typically results in 400-750 hours lost sleep for parents in the first year * Dreams, once thought to occur only during REM sleep, also occur (but to a lesser extent) in non-REM sleep phases. It's possible there may not be a single moment of our sleep when we are actually dreamless. * REM dreams are characterised by bizarre plots, but non-REM dreams are repetitive and thought-like, with little imagery - obsessively returning to a suspicion you left your mobile phone somewhere, for example. * Some scientists believe we dream to fix experiences in long-term memory, that is, we dream about things worth remembering. Others reckon we dream about things worth forgetting - to eliminate overlapping memories that would otherwise clog up our brains. * Scientists have not been able to explain a 1998 study showing a bright light shone on the backs of human knees can reset the brain's sleep-wake clock. * Seventeen hours of sustained wakefulness leads to a decrease in performance equivalent to a blood alcohol-level of 0.05%. * Tiny luminous rays from a digital alarm clock can be enough to disrupt the sleep cycle even if you do not fully wake. The light turns off a "neural switch" in the brain, causing levels of a key sleep chemical to decline within minutes. * Experts say one of the most alluring sleep distractions is the 24-hour accessibility of the internet. * The extra-hour of sleep received when clocks are put back at the start of daylight in Canada has been found to coincide with a fall in the number of road accidents. Middle East politics at Yonge and Dundas The Toronto Star reports that pro-Israel and anti-Israel demonstrations took place in downtown Toronto. I just don't believe the Star's hygienic report of the pro-Palestinian side. I wonder what details they are omitting. For instance, there is no mention of the Hezbollah flags -- the colours of an ostensibly banned-in-Canada terrorist group -- as part of the denunciation of Israel. As Kathy Shaidle noted, " once again, the supporters of banned terrorist groups showed up and the cops did nothing." The real Che Over the years, I have often refused to buy things at stores where employees wear t-shirts adorned by the famous image of Che Guevara and I've let them know why. At one newspaper and cigar store near my work I took a few papers to the cash register and then informed both the offending clerk and manager why I wasn't going to purchase them. I said that it was no different having an employee wear clothing with Guevara's image than of Adolf Eichmann's. Neither understood why and the clerk refused to believe that her hero had any role in killing people, saying that it was "George Bush's anti-Cuba propaganda." So columns like Nigel Jones' in the Telegraph about the real Che Guevara won't help educate those who need such an education. But this is worth passing onto open-minded dupes, if there are such creatures: "But a glance beneath the surface glamour of Alberto Korda's 1960 beret-and-curls photograph of Guevara is enough to expose the less-than-romantic reality. At the time he posed for Korda's camera, Guevara was jailer and executioner-in-chief of Castro's dictatorship. As boss of the notorious La Cabaña prison in Havana, he supervised the detention, interrogation, summary trials and execution of hundreds of 'class enemies'. We know from Ernest Hemingway – then a Cuban resident – what Che was up to. Hemingway, who had looked kindly on Leftist revolutions since the Spanish civil war, invited his friend George Plimpton, editor of the Paris Review, to witness the shooting of prisoners condemned by the tribunals under Guevara's control. They watched as the men were trucked in, unloaded, shot, and taken away. As a result, Plimpton later refused to publish Guevara's memoir, The Motorcycle Diaries. There have been some 16,000 such executions since the Castro brothers, Guevara and their merry men swept into Havana in January 1959. About 100,000 Cubans who have fallen foul of the regime have been jailed. Two million others have succeeded in escaping Castro's socialist paradise, while an estimated 30,000 have died in the attempt. There is little mention of this in the deification of Castro's Cuba among the West's liberal classes. The glorification of Guevara in Che and the earlier The Motorcycle Diaries film conveniently ignores it. Nor has the BBC found room, in marking the revolution's half-centenary this week, to expose the reality behind the rhetoric. Che made no secret of his bloodlust: "It is hatred that makes our soldiers into violent and cold-blooded killing machines," he wrote. But he fell out of love with the revolutionary catastrophe he had created. After helping to ruin the island's economy as minister of industry and president of the Cuban National Bank, he flounced off to bring revolution to Bolivia's peasantry. They turned him over to the army, who shot him in October 1967." Saturday, January 03, 2009
Just wondering Wikipedia needed $6 million so they asked for it. They got it, reportedly from 125,000 donors, including $2 million from 50,000 donors over the past eight days. I'd love to know who was a typical donor. Why John Robson is Canada's best columnist #4,315 John Robson began his Ottawa Citizen column this week: "A new poll says nearly half of Canadians can't name a single Canadian author. I am personally hurt, as my name appears on no fewer than three worst-sellers. I am also astonished. How can anyone in this country not be sufficiently sick of Margaret Atwood to know her name?" But, really, why can't Canadians name one of our cruddy authors? As Robson notes, "I'm not saying you have to suffer through all this stuff. But you don't have to go to Mozambique to know it's a country in Africa or some such place." I hope she's right Kimberley Strassel writes in the Wall Street Journal that card check is in trouble: "It hasn't been much noticed, but the political ground is already shifting under Big Labor's card-check initiative. The unions poured unprecedented money and manpower into getting Democrats elected; their payoff was supposed to be a bill that would allow them to intimidate more workers into joining unions. The conventional wisdom was that Barack Obama and an unfettered Democratic majority would write that check, lickety-split. Instead, union leaders now say they are being told card check won't happen soon. It seems the Obama team plans to devote its opening months to important issues, like the economy, and has no intention of jumping straight into the mother of all labor brawls. It also seems Majority Leader Harry Reid, even with his new numbers, might not have what it takes to overcome a filibuster. It's a case study in how quickly a political landscape can change, and how frequently the conventional wisdom is wrong." As Strassel begins her column, and the reason I don't think the Obama administration and Democratic Congress will govern from as far on the left as conservative talk radio is worried it will, is that "Responsibility has a way of focusing the mind." Or put another way: governing moves most politicians to the center which is good for conservatives when the Left is in power but the source of disappointment when the Right is in power. British bailout didn't work The London Telegraph reports: "Interest rates on short-term UK government bonds have dipped beneath 1pc for the first time amid a shower of evidence that Gordon Brown's banking bail-out package has failed to reignite lending." What's the word? Oh, yes, predictable. Friday, January 02, 2009
Any given Saturday  Atlanta Falcons at Arizona Cardinals: Falcons favoured by two. The Cards aren't getting any respect, making the playoffs by beating up on their division opponents (6-0 within the NFC West) while doing miserably outside the division (3-7) with just one win against teams with a 500 record or better. The Falcons went from 4-12 last year to 11-5 and second in the tough NFC South. The Falcons have a balanced offense with a competent rookie game caller in Matt Ryan, the RB with the second most rushing yards in Michael Turner, and WR with the fourth most receiving yards in Roddy White. However, only three of Turner's 17 TDs came on the road. The Falcons O-line is pretty strong (just 17 sacks allowed) and the Cards' D-line isn't anything special, so Ryan will have the time to find his targets. Kurt Warner has loads of experience and can make big plays that change the game quickly; he might feast on the 21st-ranked pass defense of the Falcons and he has three legitimate targets to pass to. Injured WR Anquan Boldin has rested for two weeks and will be back, joining Larry Fitzgerald as game-changing receivers. The Falcons are 11-0 when they score first and 0-5 when they don't, so they'll try to get on the board quickly. Fortunately for them, Arizona's defense starts off slowly. The Falcons are 10-0 when Turner runs 96 or more yards, and the Cards run defense is fairly middling. While the analytics suggest Atlanta should win, I don't like their inexperience. Sure one-dimensional teams like the Cards get exposed and beaten in the playoffs, but not always in their first game. I'm taking the Cards in an upset. Indianapolis Colts at San Diego Chargers: Colts favoured by 1. Flip a coin between two of the three hottest teams in the NFL right now and probably the two best QBs in the playoffs. The Bolts don't get much respect because they appear to have limped into January football with a 500 record in a weak division, but they have won four in a row and have more talent than a typical 500 team. QB Philip Rivers had an amazing year: 34 TDs compared to just 11 picks, 105.5 passer rating, more than 4000 yards and nearly a 66% completion rate. He can make things happen and has the team-mates to get it done more often than not: WR Vincent Jackson, TE Antonio Gates, RBs Darren Sproles and LaDainian Tomlinson. They scored the second most points in the NFL (439) but they had the 25th ranked defense. Indy has won nine in a row to finish 12-4 after starting 3-4, mostly on the strength of Peyton Manning's arm. He had 27 TDs, 12 picks, more than 4000 yards and a 95 passer rating. His targets are solid if unspectacular (WRs Reggie Wayne, Marvin Harrison, and Anthony Gonzalez and TE Dallas Clark) and is facing the second worst pass defense. More than three-quarters of Indy's offense is aerial. Now that it is healthy, the Colts have a tremendous O-line which only makes Manning more dangerous. Indy's D-line is strong and can pressure QBs without blitzing. Bolts defensive tackle Jamal Williams seems to be able to stop opponents' running game all on his own. SS Bob Sanders and the quietly effective Colts defensive backs Kelvin Hayden and Tim Jennings are a big reason why Indy had the sixth best defense against the pass allowing just six passing TDs all year. If they were facing anyone else, I'd like the Chargers but the Colts look good enough -- and finally healthy enough -- to win the Super Bowl. They'll beat the Chargers in what could be the best game of the playoffs. Baltimore Ravens at Miami Dolphins: Ravens favoured by three. I'll make this one short and sweet. The Ravens have the second best overall defense: second against the pass and third against the run. Safety Ed Reed led the NFL in picks with nine. The running game is very solid and rookie QB Joe Flacco is making big plays, especially when he hooks up with WR Mark Clayton. While the Ravens have the fourth best run game (148.5 yards per game), they have utilized a more varied offense in the past month. The Fins have won nine of 10, which indicates a pretty good team but the Ravens are the kind of team that is built for post-season success. They win and beat the spread. Philadelphia Eagles at Minnesota Vikings: Eagles favoured by three. It depends on which Eagles team shows up: the one that beat the Dallas Cowboys 44-6last week or lost to an unimpressive-looking Washington Redskins 10-3 two weeks ago. Philly has only one win in six games on the road against teams that 500 or better. The Vikings have the best defense against the run (averaging just 76 yards per game) which should neutralize RB Brian Westbrook. That means the game depends on Donovan McNabb's arm. He hits his targets and he wins but he misses and they lose. But Philly is 5-0 when when they rush for at least 134 yards which might be difficult considering Minny's D-line and Westbrook's injury-induced struggles of late. McNabb's targets are reliable -- WRs Kevin Curtis and rookie DeSean Jackson, and Westbrook -- if unspectacular. The Vikings have the leading rusher in the game in Adrian Peterson, but have not had a stable QB situation; Tarvaris Jackson has put up the numbers in his few games back but there is a reason he lost the starting QB in the first place. TE Visanthe Shiancoe has been a very solid but unheralded passing option for whoever is throwing for the Vikes, able to make good routes in the middle and lose his coverage. If NT Pat Williams is healthy (he practised once this week and as of Friday evening looks likes he be available) and joins DE Jared Allen and DT Kevin Williams, the Vikings defense will be good enough to throw the Eagles off their game and pull off the 'upset'. Four and down 4. Indianapolis Colts QB Peyton Manning definitely deserved the MVP award he won today. He received 32 of 50 votes, a good reflection of both his quality and his importance to the Indianapolis Colts. 3. I don't like the idea of Brad Pennington finishing (tied for) second. He was good, but his personal and team success was more a reflection of the system the Miami Dolphins than any special ability of his own. His numbers are inflated by the conservative approach of the Fins, whereas QBs like Manning and San Diego Chargers' Philip Rivers make big, game-changing plays. 2. Atlanta Falcons RB Michael Turner was tied with Pennington and it is hard to imagine the Falcons doing anywhere as good as he did without him. He deserves the recognition. 1. Anyone who reads this blog knows that I think Rivers receiving a single vote is a travesty. By the numbers he is the best QB in the NFL this year and without him the Bolts would have been lucky to win four games. He carried his team on his shoulders over the past month to get the Chargers into the playoffs but he is being punished for his team's mediocre record rather than his own incredible performance. Who should play Gerry Nicholls? Gerry says that now that he has a book out (Loyal to the Core), he wants to option it for a movie and have Tom Cruise play him. I think there are better choices.  The real Gerry Nicholls.  Peter Mansbridge not only has some similarities with Nicholls, he already knows Canadian politics.  Larry Miller not only looks like Gerry, he is a conservative (who used to write for the Daily Standard).  Dann Florek of Law and Order franchise fame is a great character actor. And I assume that if it is based on Nicholls' book, the perfect person to play Stephen Harper would be:  Thursday, January 01, 2009
Three and out 3. Earlier this week, the Toronto Blue Jays signed four veterans to minor league contracts hoping to find a backup catcher, perhaps a fifth starter and other spare parts. I like the move, especially the acquisition of 32-year-old catcher Michael Barrett who only hit 202 last year in a season shortened to 30 games after a foul-ball fractured his face. It is a longshot that he can be productive, but a longshot worth the minimal risk of a minor league contract for a guy with a life-time career line of 264/320/422. 2. I don't understand teams that are not even close to making the post-season, or even a 500 season, pursuing high priced free agents, but the San Francisco Giants chasing Manny Ramirez makes even less sense considering they already have an over-priced outfield of Dave Roberts, Randy Winn, and Aaron Rowand. It is hard to imagine ManRam signing a longer-term deal in the National League where he won't be able to DH. But then again, it is the Giants, a team that decided to ride along the Barry Bonds circus rather than build a competitive team. 1. The Los Angeles Angels signed left-handed closer Brian Fuentes to a two-year, $17.5 million deal with a $9 million vesting option if he finishes 55 games in 2010. The Sporting News Today suggests that Fuentes might close but could also setup either Scot Shields or Jose Arredondo. But I seriously doubt the Angels signed Fuentes to nearly $9 mil a year to setup. Four and down 4. I'll have my predictions up by Saturday morning for the first weekend of playoff action, but on first glance I have to agree with a number of football pundits that all the wild cards should be the favourites. It won't happen that way, even if the wild card qualifiers are the better teams, but on paper and by most analytics the Atlanta Falcons, Baltimore Orioles, Indianapolis Colts, and Philadelphia Eagles are better than (respectively) the Arizona Cardinals, Miami Dolphins, San Diego Chargers and Minnesota Vikings. 3. According to Football Outsiders' DVOA -- a complete football metric (that according to FO "takes every single play during the NFL season and compares each one to a league-average baseline based on situation. DVOA measures not just yardage, but yardage towards a first down) -- the first and second place teams are two wild card teams: the Philadelphia Eagles and Baltimore Orioles. The Eagles on only the second wild card team (after the '97 Denver Broncos) and the second team with fewer than 12 wins (after the 1995 San Francisco 49ers) to finish first. 2. Not good news for the San Diego Chargers -- a pair of their stars are injured and have missed consecutive practices. RB LaDainian Tomlinson has an injured groin and TE Antonio Gates has a sprained ankle. The Colts are a slightly better team than the Bolts right now, but with these injuries Indianapolis is clearly the favourite. 1. I've heard a bit of grumbling that the Offensive Rookie of the Year went to Atlanta Falcons' QB Matt Ryan rather than Baltimore Orioles' QB Joe Flacco. Indeed, Flacco wasn't one of the four rookies to receive votes for the AP Rookie of the Year honours. Sure, Ryan and Flacco both turned their teams around, helping to lead them to the playoffs, and Flacco was able to make some huge plays down the stretch as he matured rapidly during the course of the season, but the numbers make it clear that Ryan was better: Ryan had 16 TDs, 11 interceptions, 3440 yards and an 87.7 passer rating; Flacco 14 TDs, 12 picks, 2,971 yards, 80.3 passer rating. The question is why didn't Chicago Bears RB Matt Forte do better than fourth in voting (1238 rushing yards, seventh most in the NFL, and another 477 receiving). Stat of the day The Wall Street Journal reported: "From 2000 to 2007, says the New Jersey Business & Industry Association, the government added 54,800 jobs. To put that in proper perspective, that works out to 93% of all jobs created in New Jersey over those seven years." (Via: The Club for Growth blog) Create a New Day Eliezer Yudkowsky at Overcoming Bias suggests: "Sometime in the next week - January 1st if you have that available, or maybe January 3rd or 4th if the weekend is more convenient - I suggest you hold a New Day, where you don't do anything old. Don't read any book you've read before. Don't read any author you've read before. Don't visit any website you've visited before. Don't play any game you've played before. Don't listen to familiar music that you already know you'll like. If you go on a walk, walk along a new path even if you have to drive to a different part of the city for your walk. Don't go to any restaurant you've been to before, order a dish that you haven't had before. Talk to new people (even if you have to find them in an IRC channel) about something you don't spend much time discussing. And most of all, if you become aware of yourself musing on any thought you've thunk before, then muse on something else. Rehearse no old grievances, replay no old fantasies. If it works, you could make it a holiday tradition, and do it every New Year." Two quick thoughts. 1) If you do it this year and you do it again next year, doesn't that violate the spirit of New Day? 2) And about "Talk to new people ... about something you don't spend much time discussing": Don't most people talk about things they know? So doesn't talking about something new imply talking about things you don't know much about? 'If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it is free' That's from George F. Will's column in the Washington Post and we'll get back to it in a moment. He implies that even when the trends are positive (as in greater longevity), it is bad for health care economics. Will explains: "In the 43 years since America decided that health care for the elderly would be paid for by people still working, the ratio of workers to seniors has steadily declined. And the number of seniors living long enough to have five or more chronic conditions -- 23 percent of Medicare beneficiaries -- has increased. Many of those conditions could be prevented or managed by better decisions about eating, exercising and smoking. The 20 percent of Americans who still smoke are a much larger percentage of the 23 percent who consume 67 percent of Medicare spending. Furthermore, nearly 30 percent of Medicare spending pays for care in the final year of patients' lives." A doctor once explained to me that the biggest factor in ballooning health care costs is that people are surviving cancer -- that nearly one-fifth of Medicare recipients live long enough to have multiple chronic conditions when many used to die off with their first bout with cancer. Sounds awful, but its true. The central problem in financing health care is that it (health care) works: because people have access to better health care, they will require more of it. So here's a prediction for 20-30 years out: euthanasia will become legal as a matter of personal sovereignty and eventually mandatory as a means of controlling the costs associated with state-run, universal health care. Another problem with the economics of health care is that prices are practicality irrelevant. As Will notes: "Suppose, says [Health and Human Service Secretary Micheal] Leavitt, buying a car were like getting a knee operation. The dealer would say he does not know the final cumulative price, so just select a car and begin using it. Then a blizzard of bills would begin to arrive -- from the chassis manufacturer, the steering-wheel manufacturer, the seat and paint manufacturers. The dealership would charge for the time the car spent there, and a separate charge would cover the salesperson's time. Leavitt says that until health-care recipients of common procedures can get, upfront, prices they can understand and compare, there will be little accountability or discipline in the system: 'In the auto industry, if the steering-wheel maker charges an exorbitant price, the car company finds a more competitive supplier. In health care, if the medical equipment supplier charges an exorbitant price, none of the other medical participants care.' Medicare is a price-fixing system for upward of 12,000 procedures and drug codes -- and for hundreds of categories of equipment, the providers of which tenaciously oppose competition. Leavitt began implementing a tiny program of competitive bidding covering just 10 products in 10 cities. Based on the 15 days it lasted before Congress repealed it, savings were projected to be substantial. That is why equipment providers got it repealed." You know its going to be a long battle when an administration policy of simply getting limited competitive bidding in 10 cities results in a Congressional over-ride. If Ayn Rand and Edmund Burke had a child The result would be Publius at Gods of the Copybook Headings. Publius is interviewed on his own blog about socialism and social conservatism, religion and reason. Sit down with a cup of coffee and enjoy such plums as: "If the voters of Ontario had rewarded Bob Rae with a second term in 1995 we'd be Venezuela with snow right now." Of course, I disagree with him on revelation and religion, but it is nice to see a non-believer appreciate the role of reason in religion since Aquinas. |
