Sobering Thoughts |
|
|
Comments on politics, the culture, economics, and sports by Paul Tuns.
I am editor-in-chief of "The Interim," Canada's life and family newspaper, and author of "Jean Chretien: A Legacy of Scandal" (2004) and "The Dauphin: The Truth about Justin Trudeau" (2015).
I am some combination of conservative/libertarian, standing athwart history yelling "bullshit!"
You can follow me on Twitter (@ptuns).
Archives
|
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Weekend stuff 1. Dungeons and Dragons soda. 2. Jason Kottke offers his thoughts on the iPad, including this one: "The iPad makes the Kindle look like it's from the 1980s." 3. Wired.com has a story on how video games are making today's athletes better. Specifically, younger professional football players have a better understanding of complex plays because they played Madden. 4. Paul Jacob says regulation killed disco. 5. Conspiracies are usually humorous. Jonah Goldberg points to this conspiracy: Stanley Kubrick filled The Shining with hints that he filmed the fake Apollo 11 landing. 6. Science Daily reports on a "New Explanation for Sex Differences in Jealousy" that addresses differences in emotional betrayal and sexual infidelity. 7. Will Farrell and the Channel Four News Team perform Afternoon Delight (HT: GCH) People should stop thinking in binary William Galston on something President Barack Obama said: "Last week, he told Diane Sawyer that he’d rather be a successful one-term president than a mediocre two-term president. Unfortunately, there’s a third possibility." A glass-is-half-full view of Haiti Tyler Cowen on Haiti: I'm not suggesting that the future gains will, in moral terms, outweigh the massive loss of life and destruction, but still the future Haiti might have a higher growth rate and a higher level of gdp per capita. Here's how. Saturday, January 30, 2010
Absolutely true Comedienne Kathleen Madigan on XM radio just now: "Catholics don't read the Bible. We read the bulletin at church." Friday, January 29, 2010
Best thing I read all week Peter Sloterdijk's "The Grasping Hand: The modern democratic state pillages its productive citizens," at CityJournal.com. Sloterdijk writes about the transformation of the "modern democratic state ... into the debtor state," fueled by the "prodigious enlargement of the tax base," namely the progressive income tax system which is "the functional equivalent of socialist expropriation." And the citizen-slaves acquiesce: "This submissiveness is a political tour de force that would have made a king’s finance minister swoon." Sloterdijk goes on to say: In an earlier day, the rich lived at the expense of the poor, directly and unequivocally; in a modern economy, unproductive citizens increasingly live at the expense of productive ones—though in an equivocal way, since they are told, and believe, that they are disadvantaged and deserve more still. Today, in fact, a good half of the population of every modern nation is made up of people with little or no income, who are exempt from taxes and live, to a large extent, off the other half of the population, which pays taxes. If such a situation were to be radicalized, it could give rise to massive social conflict. The eminently plausible free-market thesis of exploitation by the unproductive would then have prevailed over the much less promising socialist thesis of the exploitation of labor by capital. This reversal would imply the coming of a post-democratic age.It's an excellent description of what's going on and a warning about what might happen if the state continues confiscating the wealth from the productive classes and hands over the money to the unproductive people. Excellent insight Scott Adams: "A lot of what passes as creativity is just combining things that aren't normally combined."Furthermore, "Creativity is the combining of wrong things." At least usually. What is said and unsaid George Will on the SOTU address: Such speeches must be listened to with a third ear that hears what is not said. Unmentioned was organized labor's "card check" legislation to abolish workers' rights to secret ballots in unionization elections. Obama's perfunctory request for a "climate bill" -- the term "cap-and-trade" was as absent as the noun "Guantanamo" -- was not commensurate with his certitude that life on Earth may drown in rising seas.I guarantee you that what he didn't highlight -- including health care, which he mentioned and glossed over only halfway through his 70-minute speech -- will be key components of the Democratic agenda over the next year or so. Three and out 3. Baseball Prospectus' fancy PECOTA system used to project every players' performance (its usually uncannily accurate) predicts that the New York Yankees will finish three games behind the Tampa Bay Rays in the American League East, but will also end up two games behind the Boston Red Sox. That means the Yanks would be third in the division and out of the playoffs. (Their 93 projected wins would also be third in all of baseball.) Craig Calcaterra at Circling the Bases explains why BP is probably not giving the Bronx Bombers enough credit (so many older regulars who continue to play at an elite level that PECOTA predicts will suffer a collective, largish regression) and that the three games separating three teams probably means a close-three way race which is actually a toss-up. That doesn't mean that the anti-sabermetric crowd aren't going to use this prediction to condemn the stat-heads. But that's probably because they don't understand what margin of error means. 2. I agree with everything Steven Goldman at Pinstriped Bible says about the New York Yankees signing OF Randy Winn to be the fourth (or fifth) outfielder for the Yanks. Here is Goldman's summary: "Of the free agent possibilities, the Yankees picked the best glove, the fastest baserunner, and likely the worst bat." However, what the Yanks needed was a better right-handed bat with some power; Winn is more of what they have, not what they need. Unfortunately for everyone involved, signing Johnny Damon for a comparable $2 million deal wasn't really an option. Fangraphs says that Winn might be a useful fantasy pickup in deep leagues; too bad the Yanks play the game, you know, on the field. 1. The San Diego Padres signed Jon Garland for one-year at $4.7 mil plus a $6.75 million option with a smallish buyout (it's actually a mutual option). Garland is described as a league-average innings eater and there is tremendous value in that; since 2002, he has thrown at least 191.2 innings and every year but one had an ERA between 4.01 and 4.90 with a career ERA of 4.42 (the exception was his 3.50 ERA in 2005). He is the kind of pitcher the New York Mets desperately need and that any contender could use. At less than $5 million, he should have been on everyone's wish list, including non-contenders who could dangle him as trade bait later in the season. As Rob Neyer says, at this price Garland is a steal; who doesn't want a bargain player? However, Garland might not have taken the discount elsewhere. He is a contact pitcher and playing home games at Petco, with one of the largest outfields in baseball, will only help his numbers, so he can cash in in 2011 or 2012. At the discounted price he doesn't kill the Padres' bottom line and he will be easily tradeable if the occasion presents itself. All winter I've been saying the Yanks should have thrown a one-year $8-10 million deal his way and not worry about the back end of the rotation. There's always July 31st. Thursday, January 28, 2010
100% behind this Charles Murray's proposal: Be it enacted, in the interests of the dignity of the Congress and the President of the United States, that anyone in the House chamber during a State of the Union address is prohibited from standing once the president has begun speaking until the time the president’s speech ends. Nonsense about pies David Frum says that throwing pies at politicians is terrorism. No it's not; it's mocking. I'm not saying that pie-throwing protesters shouldn't be punished, but I find five years in prison for assault without a weapon to be too much punishment for making a politician look foolish. That's the intent, not to terrorize. SOTU Flipped by the State of the Union speech twice because my eldest son wanted to watch it. I wanted to watch a re-run of Modern Family before getting started on Dallas. We spent less than a minute watching each time. It was unbearable. Yuval Levin wrote of the SOTU address: But on the whole, this was really an incredibly graceless, self-righteous, and grouchy performance. It had a lot of what’s bad about Obama’s speeches (he said “I” almost a hundred times, repeatedly referred to his campaign as though it were a great American story we all love, continued to blame Bush for everything under the sun even as he said he was “not interested in re-litigating the past,” and piled clichés sky high) but none of what’s good about his speeches—the simple theme simply pursued. It was a very Clintonian speech without Clinton’s human charm.Those were my thoughts exactly in the combined 90 seconds I watched the president. Watching various clips this morning confirms my quick impression. Graceless and self-righteous is par for the course for this president, but grouchy is new. I would also suggest politically fatal if it continues. As Mark Steyn says, perhaps it is the upturned chin that makes him appear aloof and arrogant, but it was bad optics. John J. Miller found four substantial things to like about the speech. I ditto them all. Sounds like an excellent book Peter Glover is co-writing a book that will come out later this year: Energy and Climate Wars: How naive politicians, green ideologues and media elites are undermining the truth about energy and climate. More here. Also, check out Glover's excellent blog that covers much more than climate hooey. Worse than government spending is the rules The Daily Telegraph ran an article a few days ago about how the Labour government creates an average of 33 new laws every month: Thanks to Labour, it is now illegal to swim in the wreck of the Titanic or to sell game birds killed on a Sunday or Christmas Day – eventualities overlooked by previous governments.Years ago on this blog I often made a big deal about how the Blair government banned the use of hounds in fox hunting. Many readers complained that I was making too big of a deal about a minor issue. But it wasn't a minor issue; it was a symbol of what the Labour Party is all about (on so many levels). Putting aside its deliberate destruction of British heritage and the class warfare (which were also important to Tony Blair's "New Labour"), there was the never-ending interference in people's lives. A government that will fret about the use of hounds in fox hunting will become overbearing -- exactly the kind of government that passes 4,289 laws banning certain activities. Don't believe the hype (about corn-fed cows) Environmentalists claim that corn-fed cattle are bad for the environment and some resort to lies about cows being grass-fed until World War II. James McWilliams at Freakonomics explains that corn-fed cattle have a longer pedigree than that -- unless WWII ended in 1822. Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Universal care without coercion? William L. Anderson answers the question at The Freeman Online: Proponents of such a policy claim that unless everyone is forced to participate, the system will not provide “equal care,” and therein is the lynch pin of the whole system. From taxation of “Cadillac” plans to forcing everyone, regardless of health, to purchase policies, the government is attempting to enforce an egalitarianism that is in the best interests of no one but the political classes. Midweek stuff 1. Popular Mechanics has "11 Things You Didn't Know About Pinball History," including the fact that it was banned in many large US cities until the 1970s. (HT: Hit & Run) 2. Haggis may soon be liberated in America (banned since 1989). 3. Did the original Star Wars suck? Even granting all the problems ThisRecording.com lists, the movie still doesn't suck. Will it stand the test of time? Who knows. I'm not sure that this matters: "Mission-based programming like Star Trek and Stargate is about the vagaries of human exploration. That's not Star Wars. It's about fear of technology, and a movie about fear of technology is probably not going to age all that well in the age of technology. That's the age we're in." 4. The Wall Street Journal reports on the "tricks" hotels are using to lure more business customers. 5. From Scientific American: "You'll Go Blind: Does Watching Television Close-Up Really Harm Eyesight?" 6. Mark Perry at Carpe Diem has a good post on recycling about the 77% who claim to recycle ("lazy recyclers" who outsource their recycling) and the 23% who tell pollsters they don't recycle ("active recyclers" who probably do in much more fruitful ways). It is worth reading but I link to it, however, because there is a photo of a beer bottle chandelier. 7. From Onion TV: "Final Season Of 'Lost' Promises To Make Fans More Annoying Than Ever." Final Season Of 'Lost' Promises To Make Fans More Annoying Than Ever The rise and decline of Aileen Carroll The Ontario Liberals have already lost two MPPs -- cabinet ministers -- to municipal politics and if the Toronto Star is to be believed, they could lose three more: Aileen Carroll (Barrie), Kim Craitor (Niagara Falls) and Kevin Flynn (Oakville). Jim Watson and George Smitherman have already announced their intention to run for mayor of Ottawa and Toronto, respectively. The Star reports of the possibility of the 65-year-old Carroll returning to municipal politics: One supporter said the former local councillor, who has represented Barrie at the cabinet table both federally and provincially, would be a "star candidate."A "star candidate"? More like a falling star. Carroll, a former Barrie city councilor, was elected as a federal MP in 1997 under the Liberal banner and eventually became Minister for International Cooperation in the Paul Martin government. She lost her 2006 re-election bid. In 2007, she ran provincially for the Liberals and was elected MPP. She was named Minister of Culture and Minister Responsible for Seniors, but lost her job in the cabinet shuffle last week. If she does run for mayor later this year, she'll be in line to run for dog catcher by 2013. iPad  From the New York Times live blog of the release of Apple's answer to Kindle: You get the feeling that the iPad is creating and killing categories at the same time. It is a remarkably ambitious project in terms of all the things — photos, games, video and e-mail — that it is attempting to grab market share in.The NYT coverage of the release, BTW, is excellent. Hayekian haiku Russell Roberts and comments provide some Hayeku. It's not as awful as it sounds. Roberts: Why do we pretendCarl Oberg: Emergent Order The State of the Union Address I won't be watching it tonight. I haven't watched a SOTU address for a few years now. I can read the speech later online and check out the news accounts and commentary. Or I can guess what kind of bull excrement the speech will be filled with and try to read between the lines of the president's lies. Craig Newmark at Newmark's Door did an advance reading and explanation of the speech yesterday, and it's well worth reading. Tonight I'll be finishing season one of Mad Men on DVD and starting season eight of Dallas (the "dream season). I'll also be on my laptop (probably checking in with The Corner about the SOTU address) and probably perusing a book or magazine. This is how people consume 9-12 hours of media a day -- simultaneously watching TV, reading, and surfing the internet for four hours. I'm pretty sure that my daily consumption of media exceeds 24 hours. Watching Obama on the television might cause a book or the laptop to head toward the television screen. One must be careful when multi-tasking. Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Double standards on sex and money Don Boudreaux paraphrases a line from economics and law scholar Paul Rubin: "Whenever there’s a corporate scandal, it’s typically blamed on an increase in greed, but when there’s a sex scandal, it’s never blamed on an increase in lust." Don't believe the hype II (about glacier loss) Donna Laframboise at NoConsensus.org and The Economist on the phoney IPCC claim that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. I'd like to say the International Panel on Climate Change is ignorant but from what we know about how the zealous scientists operate, we should be forgiven for thinking they are liars. Don't believe the hype (about spending 'cuts') President Barack Obama will reportedly call for a freeze on non-security discretionary spending in tomorrow's State of the Union address. CNN reports that it will save $250 billion, but that can't be right unless it is over some longer time frame (which it probably is, but the talking heads never mentioned it). There are stories about this development in the New York Times (which calls the spending freeze a spending reduction), Washington Post (which correctly reports the "spending freeze would affect only about one-eighth of the nation's $3.5 trillion budget") and Wall Street Journal (which has this great line: "Responding to criticism, administration officials acknowledged the freeze is directed at only a small part of overall spending, but that fiscal discipline has to start somewhere"). Addressing the massive federal budget deficit by freezing discretionary spending is like trying to empty the ocean with a shot glass. As Sheldon Richman says at The Freeman Online, it's "a really modest proposal." But it is worse than that; by appearing to address the fiscal shortfall, the administration stands in the way of genuine entitlement reform, severe budget cuts and a serious re-examination of the relationship between government and governed.* Even if you have to start somewhere, that start is exceedingly insufficient, but the beginning will also probably be the end. All that said, Tyler Cowen is correct: no one should be surprised that Obama did this (even if he wanted to do more) because "politics is more constrained than many people think." The Republicans find the freeze insufficient while many Democrats find it Draconian. I would also add that satisfying various stakeholders, from the bureaucracy to Wall Street to worrying about China's reaction to the US economy, all come into play. Still, the bottom line is that government spending is still going strong. For the Pelosi/Obama Democrats, hand-wringing notwithstanding, that's mission accomplished. * Standing in the way of what needs to be done to reduce the size of government could be President Obama's goal. Monday, January 25, 2010
Three and out 3. Over at Baseball Analysts Stan Opdyke remembers (romanticizes?) baseball on the radio in New York from 1953. 2. A lot of baseball rumours are silly but the one about the Milwaukee Brewers moving to Orlando is sillier than most. Just down the interstate, the Tampa Bay Rays are struggling, while in Milwaukee the Brewers have team that finished in the top third in attendance in a newish stadium. Shadow of the Stadium has a good post on the topic. Peter Gammons writes at MLB.com about why baseball is not going to put another team in the Sunshine State. 1. A Fangraphs threat on suggestions for a sabermetric library with links to article and mentions of notable books. I ditto the comment: "The whole Baseball Between the Numbers book should be a starting point..." Also Joe Posnanski's argument on the limits of BA/HRs/RBIs is worth reading and re-reading. Sunday, January 24, 2010
You think? The National Post has the tragic story of Cinderella Allalouf, a 39-year-old obese Jamaican-Canadian woman who was mentally ill, charged with kidnapping and kept at 999 Queen St. West, the notorious Queen Street Mental Health Centre. The article is lengthy and is not typical of the type of stories I usually read in a newspaper, but for whatever reason I did. This paragraph both explains what the story is about and provides an example of incredible understatement: Ms. Allalouf's doctors acknowledged that a ward of 19 men so mentally ill they could not legally be sent to jail for their crimes was not the ideal place for a sexually voracious schizophrenic woman, but they kept her there anyway until an alternative could be found. The Elizabeth May Party The National Post has a story on how Green Party leader Elizabeth May is trying to avert a mandatory leadership review. No big deal, every party leader tries to get away with that. I found these comments interesting, though: "Elizabeth is a weak political leader, but she is strong enough to dominate the $2-million-a-year, 9,000-member Green Party," wrote John Ogilvie, the publisher of the blog Report on Greens, which has become a centre for anti-May discussions.I've often said that May is not a real political leader, and should be treated with all the seriousness we treat high school student council because she often acts like a teenager. But thinking of May in terms of leader of an party that lacks seriousness helps understand why she continues to have the platform she does. She's good enough for the Greens. Weekend stuff 1. From Forbes.com the 15 biggest Hollywood flops of the past five years. 2. Cracked.com has "6 Reasons Homemade Porn is a Worse Idea Than You Think." 3. Tyler Cowen wonders whether it can be true that eight per cent of Haitians are orphans. 4. Wired.com's DangerRoom reports that "Texts, Tweets Saving Haitians From the Rubble." 5. H1N1, the epidemic that wasn't. So says Michael Fumento, quoting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's FluView. 6. Listverse has "10 Gamblers Who Beat The Casino." 7. Clay Travis of FanHouse says college coaches are like strippers. 8. Popular Science reports that "Wind Turbines Leave Clouds and Energy Inefficiency in Their Wake," based on studies on the Horns Rev off Denmark. 9. From Jimmy Kimmel Live, "The Late Night Wars" (between Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien) as if Ken Burns did a documentary on them (without the racial subtext): Saturday, January 23, 2010
Four and down 4. Last week, the Minnesota Vikings torched the Dallas Cowboys 34-3. The Vikes' front four were incredible, putting an unreal amount of pressure on Tony Romo. If they play like that tomorrow in New Orleans, the Saints will lose; if they play like that on February 7, the Vikings will be Super Bowl champs. Jared Allen, Pat Williams, Kevin Williams, and Ray Edwards -- Edwards missed a few practices this week but should be ready for Sunday's game -- were as good as a D-line can be and were evidence that 1) great defense can be enjoyable to watch and 2) great line play usually decides games. My opinion of the charge against Brett Favre running up the score and improving his and his team-mates stats by scoring a meaningless touchdown in the final few minutes when the Vikings were already up 27-3: who cares. It's not running up a score; it's building confidence, sending a message, and playing as best as a team possibly can. I like the 'Boys and absolutely hate (but respect) the Vikings and detest (and grudgingly respect PurpleJesus -- aka Favre), but I liked the late score. It's what winners do. 3. The New York Jets beat the San Diego Chargers 17-14. I have three observation. 1) Nate Kaeding missed three field goals, including ones from 34 and 40 yards. Some pundits point out that if he makes one of them the game goes to OT and if he makes both of them the Bolts win. Not quite. I'm a big on the butterfly effect and if Kaeding scores, the rest of the game that followed would have been different. From field placement to play calls based on the score and situation, the rest of the game would have changed. All that said, Kaeding missing those field goals certainly didn't help. 2) The Jets defense is amazing to watch, I really like their aggressiveness. That's the coaching of Rex Ryan, and that more than his mouth is the story of his influence on the Jets this season. The defense did a lot to get Philip Rivers off his game. Rivers was picked on back-to-back passes. That is as much a testament to the pressure the D-line was putting on Rivers as it was the secondary who stole the passes. Rivers was fine for much of the game (298 yards) but he was not his usual cool-headed self, and didn't make the plays when the Bolts needed it. Lastly, San Diego had 61 yards on the ground. Teams need to be more balanced than that to win. 2. New York Jets at Indianapolis Colts: The storyline this week is that the Colts are going to regret laying down for the Jets on the second last week if New York beats them in the AFC Championship. True, but how likely is that? Aside from the any given Sunday and all that, probably not as much as most people think. The Jets have played two hard games, while Indy is relatively rested with only one game after the bye in the first week of the playoffs -- plus the game and a half rest in their lay downs in the final two regular season games. The Jets play a hard, physical game and are more likely to tire. The Jets have the defense to keep the Colts from going on a scoring spree but don't have the offense to win it themselves. Mark Sanchez makes a few big plays but he has completed more than 60% of his passes in just four of the 17 games he has played in the regular season and playoffs. He has had 106 or fewer yards in four of his last six games, and just 100 yards in last weeks win. I don't care how good the rest of the team is, it is hard to win at this stage with such a middling (to be kind) quarterback. On the other side of the field, Peyton Manning recognizes and reacts to the blitz better than any QB in the league (sacked just 10 times in '09). There is no reason to think he will get sloppy like Philip Rivers did last week or Carson Palmer did the Cincinnati Bengals loss the week before. Manning has a ridiculous number of targets, thus rendering Darrelle Revis less of a disrupting factor. He'll hand the ball off just enough to RB Joseph Addai to keep the Jets defense honest. TE Dallas Clark and WR Reggie Wayne -- the latter will be covered by Revis -- will receive most of the passes but wideout Pierre Garcon has game-changing speed and Austin Collie is dangerous receiver, too. It is hard to imagine the Jets rattling Manning or covering all his targets. The Colts defense is not big but it is fast and intelligent and it will be interesting to see how the D-line does against the running game of Shonn Greene and Thomas Jones. Colts win 20-13. 1. Minnesota Vikings at New Orleans Saints: New Orleans does pretty much everything well except stop the run. Adrian Peterson hasn't rushed 100 yards in any of his last eight games. Drew Brees uses everyone and their mother in the offense. Brett Favre makes everyone around him better, especially WR Sidney Rice and TE Visanthe Shiancoe. Percy Harvin has been better on special teams as of late than he has the offense, despite making highlight reel plays earlier this season. Saints have 70,000 screaming fans behind them, making audibles nearly impossible for Favre and huddles difficult. If you've read or watched anything about the Saints this week, you get the feeling that this is not a football game but a metaphysical event meant that will finally close the door on Katrina. Saints coach Sean Payton is a master offensive chessmaster who isn't afraid to radically alter the plan from game-to-game or within the game. Defensive coordinator Gregg Williams has really turned around the Saints defense. The Vikes are probably a rung above the Saints on the defense ladder but two rungs below on offense. If there is a big difference it is Minny's front-four. As I noted above, if Allen, the two Williamses and Edwards play like they did last week, the Vikes will be returning to the Super Bowl for the first time since 1977. It is hard to dominate line play quite that much two weeks in a row. The Saints head to their first ever Super Bowl after beating the Vikings 27-24. Words of wisdom "Nobody in life gets exactly what they thought they were going to get. But if you work really hard and you're kind, amazing things will happen." -- Conan O'Brien during his last monologue on The Tonight Show. Free speech: respecting the constitution versus a liberal view of the world Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution: Here from Maya Sen are speech balloons illustrating the importance of various words from the majority and then dissenting/concurring opinions in Citizens United v. FEC (more frequently used words are larger). It's interesting to me that just looking at the balloons I can tell which side was more concerned with the Constitution and which side was more concerned with a particular view of the ideal polity.The Kennedy (majority, pro-free speech opinion) decision:  The Stevens (minority, anti-free speech opinion) decision:  You can enlarge the images by clicking on them. As Maya Sen says, "It's amazing how much information we can glean from these visualizations, even without having perused either opinion." A Canadian health care debate? For some reason TheMarkNews.com has a symposium on "Healing health care" in Canada. I was unaware that Canadians debate health care anymore. I'm not against discussing it. My own view is that Canadian health care probably works well enough, is hardly a disaster for most people, but could be much better. The cost of the public health care system is something that should be addressed but probably won't. I also find it morally repulsive that patients are (mostly) not allowed to be consumers and supplement their state-provided care with better health care coverage. Other than with a handful of wonky friends, I don't have these types of discussions any longer occur. Part of the reason, as Herbert Emery points out in TheMarkNews symposium is that nationalism plays such a key component in the health care debate. Emery, the Svare Professor of Health Economics at the University of Calgary, says "Any attempt to increase the private sector's role in delivering health care is un-Canadian." And yet, as Emery notes, the Canadian health care system has never been entirely public. Up until 1984 there was "extra billing" and today dental care, most pharmaceutical drugs and some therapies and specialized care are paid out-of-pocket or privately by insurance. Thus, "At least one-third of health care spending in Canada is from private sources." Most Canadians are unaware of these facts despite being directly affected by them. Emery says, "Tying health care to nationalism not only promotes an inaccurate view of our health care system, it redirects debate away from a question Canadians need to address – what services should be included in the public system, and what could be left to the private market?" Wrapping the health care system in the Maple Leaf isn't going to make health care any better or affordable. But it can make things worse. Friday, January 22, 2010
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Important free speech victory. The ruling is here. Read especially Justice Antonin Scalia's rebuttal of Justice John Paul Stevens. Bench Memos and Hit & Run have good coverage and commentary; scroll throughout the January 21 posts, but this one by Paul Sherman is especially good. The Wall Street Journal editorial is worth reading; here is the key 'graph: Justice Kennedy emphasized that laws designed to control money in politics often bleed into censorship, and that this violates core First Amendment principles. "Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence," he wrote. The ban on corporate expenditures had a "substantial, nationwide chilling effect" on political speech, he added.Here is a background video from the Cato Institute. Obama administration report card The Competitive Enterprise Institute has a report card for the White House and various top departments in the current administration. Mostly Ds and Fs with the high marks being a pair of C minuses. Thursday, January 21, 2010
Kathy Shaidle speech Her talk at the rally for Geert Wilders is worth watching even if you don't care about the Dutch politician or creeping Islamification. Three important ideas worth thinking about in a broad range of contexts: 1) Her comments on extremism apply to a whole range of issues. Give them enough rope George F. Will: The 2008 elections gave liberals the curse of opportunity, and they have used it to reveal themselves ruinously. The protracted health-care debacle has highlighted this fact: Some liberals consider the legislation's unpopularity a reason to redouble their efforts to inflict it on Americans who, such liberals think, are too benighted to understand that their betters know best. The essence of contemporary liberalism is the illiberal conviction that Americans, in their comprehensive incompetence, need minute supervision by government, which liberals believe exists to spare citizens the torture of thinking and choosing.I don't share Will's optimism that there are enough sober-minded Democrats. Midweek stuff 1. Publius of Gods of the Copybook Headings ruminates on the state on the Globe and Mail and National Post and provides a history lesson at the same time. As the blogger says, George Brown would be disappointed in all three things -- the Globe, the Liberal Party and Canada -- that he created or had a hand in creating. If Publius was a columnist, he'd be one of the country's finest. 2. New Scientist reports that "Transparent frogs, tiny geckos and snail-sucking snakes" are among the cool new animals found in Ecuador. Scientists are always discovering new creatures. 3. The Daily Mail reports that a British heart surgeon wants butter banned. 4. Craig Newmark suggest five things "gov't can learn from private industry." (HT: the other Craig Newmark) 5. Unions and the decline of U.S. cities from Cato. 6. My friend Jono has some spectacular photos of Toronto at night from "dizzying heights." 7. A written and graphical account of the evolution of crayola colours. They double the number of colours every 28 years. 8. William Easterly offers "the Powerpoint version of I Have a Dream." 9. Sarah Silverman had a dream, too (warning: offensive language). Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Cassandra (me) speaks Best said by Jay Nordlinger: I will say merely that Massachusetts today showed that America is not quite ready for social democracy — not yet. Sweden will not arrive tomorrow. Maybe the next day. But not tomorrow, and that is heartening.While the special election win for Republicans is worth celebrating, I'm convinced the election in Massachusetts delays the inevitable: America will get socialized medicine either in 2010 or 2015 or 2020 or sometime. For the immediate future, the question is whether Barack Obama is properly chastened. The Wall Street Journal editorializes: Yesterday's vote wasn't a repudiation of Mr. Obama's Presidency, or at least it needn't be. The President remains more popular than his policies, and voters want him to succeed. But they are also telling him he needs to steer a more moderate, less partisan course, returning to the pragmatism and comity that shaped his political rise but have vanished in his first, squandered year.A leopard can't change its spots. The question is whether Obama is first a politician with an instinct for survival or an ideological liberal with a love for big government. I think it is the latter. Don't expect this repudiation of Obamaism to chasten the president. Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Excellent photo journalism from Haiti At the Boston Globe. There are some graphic photos, but you must click a button to see them. Two photos were particularly striking to me. #31 shows a body being removed from a casket so the looter can steal the coffin. #33 shows an entrepreneur who rents cells phone charger by the hour; he should be congratulated but I fear many will find his service exploitative. Stand with Geert Wilders in Toronto Details here. Reasons here. And this from Daniel Pipes: He represents all Westerners who cherish their civilization. The outcome of his trial and his freedom to speak have implications for us all. Monday, January 18, 2010
Brown vs. Coakley Despite the polls that show a strong swing toward the Republican (who now leads by double digits in some polls), I doubt Scott Brown will defeat Democrat Martha Coakley. It's not even that I think Republicans can't win statewide office in Massachusetts -- after all William Weld and Mitt Romney have done it. I just can't see the people of the commonwealth handing the Kennedy Senate seat to a Republican. David Frum says that "Brown is not only more liberal than was Dede Scozzafava – but is also more liberal than most Massachusetts Republicans." Frum wants to see Brown beat Coakley, but implies that there is something strange that movement conservatives are so eager to see Brown win when they worked so hard against Scozzafava. Frum misses the point: there was an electable conservative option to the liberal-leaning Republican in the New York special election. There is another difference: the win or loss in the House of Representatives wouldn't have made much difference overall but picking up a seat in the Senate means the Republicans have the magic 40 seats necessary to filibuster (if they stick together). Of course, there there is the chance to derail Obamacare, which alone is worth a lot of compromise. Lastly, as much as there is to be excited about for Republicans and conservatives in the Massachusetts race there is also a concern. After coming so close to picking up the seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy, a Republican loss would be be a huge boost to Harry Reid, Barack Obama and the Democrats. It will create momentum for the party and they could plausibly claim a mandate for passing health care reform after Republicans made this race a referendum on the issue. Best thing I've read so far in 2010 John Ratzenberger (Cliff from Cheers), quoted in The Corner: And when everything fell apart, and people were fighting for peanut-butter sandwiches, it was the National Guard who came in and saved the same people who were protesting them. So when Hillary Clinton a few years ago wanted to build a Woodstock memorial, I said it should be a statue of a National Guardsman feeding a crying hippie.(HT: Five Feet of Fury) Rally for Geert Wilders in Toronto Wednesday evening Details here. Wilders is the Dutch politician behind the short film Fitna, about the "creeping tyranny of Islamization." Samuelson explains Wall Street pay Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson says that while most people are paid based on what they produce, whereas "Wall Street compensation levels are tied to the nation's overall wealth." Samuelson also notes that there is a difference between production and wealth. Therefore, while the country is slow to recover, many are out of work and Congress is having troubles paying the bills, financial wizards are getting huge bonuses. There is nothing wrong with that. Wall Street makes America go around: It helps allocate capital, which -- done well -- promotes a vibrant economy. In 2007, Wall Street firms enabled businesses to raise $2.7 trillion from the sale of stocks, bonds and other securities.Of course, sometimes is messes up, and when it does the country can suffer (see Fall 2008 to now). But Wall Street's pay is still in line with how spectacularly wealthy America is today, even after a deep and painful recession. Lefty professor not pleased with Obama James Laxer wrote in the Toronto Star yesterday: While his sweeping intellectual capacity remains in evidence, Barack Obama's ability to deliver the goods to those who voted for him or at least to convey to them the message that he is on their side is now in serious doubt.Laxer says that "this has the feel of a one-term presidency about it." Sunday, January 17, 2010
Canada's Sarah Palin Conservative MP Shelley Glover doesn't know who Tom Flanagan is. She then changes her story to she's never met him. But at least he's entitled to his opinion. The continued decline of journalism Another reason why the printed word is dying: celebrity writers. Jack Shafer at Slate: Why the goddamn hell is Barack Obama writing the cover story for next week's Newsweek (which, like Slate, is owned by the Washington Post Co.)? He doesn't know anything about Haiti outside of what his aides may have told him. He won't even write it! If the piece is worth publishing, Newsweek should give the byline to its true author. Four and down 4. Last week, I was 3-1 in wild card playoff predictions, wrong only on the Green Bay Packers-Arizona Cardinals game that the Cards won in overtime. So far this weekend I'm zero for two. I predicted the Cards would upset the New Orleans Saints 37-31 this afternoon; Arizona got off to an early 7-0 lead, but lost 45-14. New Orleans just did everything right while Kurt Warner had a lackluster game, playing the second half with a sore back that obviously affected his throwing ability. I thought the Baltimore Ravens would edge out the Indianapolis Colts 23-20. Indy won 20-3. At least I got the Colts points correct. The Ravens didn't even sniff the end zone. Their defense, however, should be given credit for holding Peyton Manning to just two touchdowns; the game was tied 3-3 until the final two minutes of the first half. Baltimore had two big plays negated by penalties. Today, the pre-game talkers implied yesterday's games were boring. That's not true. There were lots of great plays in both games, the defense was forcing turnovers, etc... The Saints game had lots of scoring and New Orleans is always thrilling to watch; the Indy-Ravens game was closer than the score indicated and both teams were making big plays on both sides of the ball. 3. Without making excuses for my Cardinals prediction or for the team's defeat, the Arizona Republic's Dan Bickley is correct to say this: "The Cardinals had legitimate alibis against the Saints. They lost two defensive starters (Antrel Rolle, Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie) to injury early in the game. They were playing on short rest and low fuel. Meanwhile, the Saints are an offensive juggernaut, a team that scored more than 500 points in the regular season." However, in the same column, Bickley says that with Warner perhaps hanging up his cleats, it could be the end of the era for team. A little early for these types of columns. Write it when Warner announces his retirement, if he indeed does. 2. On Friday David Biderman had a fascinating article in the Wall Street Journal on football broadcasts. There are some historical tidbits and information about how current broadcasts are put together now, all of which are quite interesting. The focus, however, is on how much time each television broadcast is action, replays, shots of coaches, fans or cheerleaders, standing around, commercials, etc... The What's in a Game graphic has a lot of neat details, although the sample size is too smallish to draw too many conclusions, especially when one considers that the samples were taken from the second last week of the season. Some people will say that a mere 11 minutes of action over a three hour broadcast would indicate the game is not very interesting. Not true. Football's bursts of episodic action -- like baseball's -- is intense and rewards watching all the more because it isn't constant; by comparison, the constant flow of basketball or hockey becomes monotonous. Furthermore, the action to a football viewer is more constant because replays are simply the re-showing of action. As for the cheerleaders? I agree with the network executive who says that if they aren't Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders, why bother. 1. Football fans have some crazy get-ups. These are from last week, some are better than others but none are as good as this one:  If you are visiting LA, plan to take in the gangs The Associated Press reports: Only miles from the scenic vistas and celebrity mansions that draw sightseers from around the globe - but a world away from the glitz and glamour - a bus tour is rolling through the dark side of the city's gang turf.The organizers and political observers treat this as a way to bring jobs to "the community" and increase understanding, and not as a morbid curiosity. (HT: Carpe Diem) Conservatives on Conrad-Gregg The Heritage Foundation and George Will are both against the Kent Conrad-Judd Gregg plan to create a Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action entrusted with coming up with ways to address the long-term debt problems facing America. I don't really disagree with anything they say about the problems with the task force and indeed I share some of their theoretical and substantive concerns. But this might be one of those extremely rare times in which the theory is bad but the practice is, if not good, at least better. There is obviously no political will on the part of elected officials to seriously cut entitlements and therefore any lip service given to balancing the budget over time is just that: lip service. I don't care what the constitution says, politicians can no longer be trusted with the country's finances under their normal operating procedures, if at all. A panel -- even a political panel -- that offers an unamendable plan to address taxation and entitlements is probably the only way America's long-term government finances can be made sustainable because it is the only way to lessen the political calculations and pressures from interfering with good economics. I don't like Will's suggestion to ameliorate the damage done by such a panel by cutting the pay of Congressmen. The Heritage Foundation doesn't like that the panel will be made up mostly of current Congressmen and therefore be representative of the current Congressional makeup while any vote to accept the panel's conclusions will come in the next Congress which will probably have a different makeup. I find this to be something of a small benefit, increasing the chances of getting a genuine centrist and non-partisan solution or compromise. Conservatives ought to know the wisdom in the saying that the best can be the enemy of the good and right now good, or at least marginally better, is perhaps the most we can hope for when it comes to having politicians fix the long-term finances of the nation. If anyone should understand that, it is a conservative. Saturday, January 16, 2010
A good night After the football game and once the post-game coverage on the NFL Network got repetitive, I was channel surfing and came across the movie Boogie Nights, and one of my all-time favourite scenes (not safe for work or appropriate for people who don't appreciate copious swearing). Weekend stuff 1. The Los Angeles Times has the "Top 10 Strange College Nicknames." I'm not sure how the Cal-Santa Cruz Banana Slugs only make number two. 2. The Daily Telegraph has a video report of a replica of the Great Wall of China that was made of chocolate. 3. Science Daily reports on a new study that finds alligators breathe like birds. 4. Wikipedia on the difference between American and British spellings. 5. Mental Floss explains "Hollywood’s Most Famous Noises" -- or at least Ben Burtt's most famous sounds. Burtt is the man who gave us R2-D2's and Chewbacca's voices and Indiana Jones' whip. 6. This is pretty disgusting: "Top 10 Most Horrific Parasite Infections," from Listverse. The bonus (11th) parasitic infection is especially disturbing. 7. The Book of Odds has an interesting story on earthquakes which includes these facts: "Only 1 in 115 federal disaster declarations will be earthquake related, but1 in 15.57 catastrophe-loss dollars paid out by insurance companies goes to fixing quake damage." 8. Man filmed having sunglasses tattooed onto face. Four and down (Divisional playoffs, Part II) 2. Dallas Cowboys at Minnesota Vikings: This contest is very much a match between Brett Favre and Tony Romo. There might be another 100 players on the field, but the focus will be on the quarterback even more than usual. Favre had an MVP-type year: second in passer rating (107.2), tied for second in TDs (33) and third in completion percentage (68.4). His 33:7 TD to interception ratio is not only the best in the league of all players with at least 10 touchdowns -- indeed no other quarterback with ten touchdown passes had fewer than seven picks -- but the best in his career: Favre has never had fewer than 13 picks in any full season. Adrian Peterson is still the best running back in the game despite Chris Johnson's phenomenal season. Percy Harvin is a dynamic receiver and even better kick returner. Sidney Rice is Favre's favourite target (1312 yards, 15.8 yards per catch). Tight end Visanthe Shiancoe takes care of things up the middle and for score (566 yards, 11 TDs). There is no doubt that the Vikes can score. However, the O-line has looked mediocre for much of the latter part of the season, with guard Steve Hutchinson's play not matching his reputation and tackle Bryant McKinnie playing so poorly he was benched down the stretch. They'll need to play at the top of their game to stop Cowboy OLB's DeMarcus Ware and Anthony Spencer from getting to Favre. The key to the Vikes winning is an offensive line that keeps Favre unpressured and gives Peterson room to run. If the O-line breaks down and it won't even be close. As for the Cowboys, they have a diverse offense and if one player slumps, there are another half dozen to pick up the slack: WRs Miles Austin, Roy Williams and Patrick Clayton, TE Jason Witten, RBs Marion Barber, Felix Jones and Tashard Choice. Austin and Jones have big play capabilities with ridiculous speed. They'll face the vaunted Minnesota defense, but it isn't quite as good as most people think. The front four is the best in the game: Jared Allen, Pat Williams, Kevin Williams, and Ray Edwards. As good as Allen is -- and he is good -- nearly half (7) of his 14.5 sacks (second in the NFL) came in just two games (the two contests with the Green Bay Packers). But the secondary is suspect; according to the advance metrics of Football Outsiders, the Minnesota safeties and cornerbacks are just woeful in stopping big passing plays. One traditional stat confirms this: a 92.52 opponents passer rating. Expect both teams to put a lot of pressure on the quarterbacks, but Dallas might be better poised to force turnovers. The weak Minny secondary might entice the Cowboys to abandon their running game and throw a lot more. Much has been made about the advantage the Vikings have playing inside the Metrodome, but Dallas will appreciate not having to play in the north outdoors in the middle of January. Brett Favre is 0-3 against Dallas in the post-season. The Cowboys have won four in a row going back to early December, including ending New Orleans' perfect season and defeating the Philadelphia Eagles in back-to-back games. Dallas wins 27-20. 1. New York Jets at San Diego Chargers: I love Rex Ryan's confidence, telling his players and the media to get ready for a Super Bowl parade in the Big Apple this February. He talks a big game, and thus far has delivered. I hate the Jets, but they play a tough game and if you are a football fan, it is hard not to like what they've done the past few weeks. It would be great to see Ryan's bravado rewarded. It won't be easy. The Chargers finished fourth in scoring (28.4 points a game), while the Jets had the stingiest defense (14.8 points per game). Bolts QB Philip Rivers had the highest average yards per attempt (8.8) and had the third best passer rating (104.4). The Jets defense were first in yards per pass attempt (5.4) and defensive passer rating (58.8). In other words, we'll see if great offense can beat a great defense or vice versa. This week's Sports Illustrated says that "For the Chargers to advance, they have to get past the Jets' Darrelle Revis, the game's best corner." That's not quite right. Every week, CB Darrelle Revis shuts down the top receiver on opposing teams, but the Chargers receiving corps is taller than most (the joke is they are built like NBA forwards). Even if Revis stops Vincent Jackson, he is only one of three big receiving targets for Rivers; Football Outsider Mike Tanier writing at the New York Times Fifth Down blog, noted that Jackson was targeted for only 21% of Bolts passes in '09 (most other top targets get at least a quarter of all passes). TE Antonio Gates had 79 catches for a total of 1157 yards. WR Malcom Floyd averaged 17.2 yards per reception on 45 catches. Darren Sproles had more receiving yards (497) than rushing yards (343). If San Diego has a weakness, it is that they are overly reliant on the run: Bolts were fifth in passing yards, second to last in rushing yards. RB LaDainian Tomlinson is not what he used to be, but he did run for more than 700 yards and led the team with 12 scores. The Jets' defensive advantages could be minimized by San Diego's tendencies. It is not unusual for the Bolts to protect Rivers with seven blockers and that could neutralize the Jets, who like to blitz. The Jets will run with Thomas Jones and Shonn Greene, and the fact that San Diego likes to blitz -- the Bolts will throw linebackers Shaun Phillips and Shawne Merriman, who combined for 11 sacks, at QB Mark Sanchez -- could open some nice holes for the New York backs. Cold Hard Football Facts says that San Diego is one of the worst defending teams (tied for 26th in overall defensive hogs index and 24th in yards allowed (4.85) per running play). Sanchez is being lauded for leading his team by winning the final two games and then defeating the Cincinnati Bengals on the wild card weekend, but they played two teams that laid down for them in the regular season and a Bengals team that was simply inept in the playoffs. Offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer has amended the game plan to have Sanchez mostly throw just beyond the line of scrimmage and go for short yardage gains, supplemented by a few long passes (but not many). CBs Quentin Jammer or Antonio Cromartie are more likely to cause Sanchez and his receivers trouble than their recent opponents. If the Bolts get ahead early or build a lead, the Jets will be forced to the air, which will probably spell trouble for New York and the rookie quarterback (20 picks in 15 regular season games). The Chargers are rested and the Jets have to travel to the West Coast, although southern California is home to Sanchez. Assuming that New York doesn't out-turnover San Diego by four or five, the Chargers should win this one handily: 24-13. Four and down (Divisional playoffs, Part I) 4. Arizona Cardinals at New Orleans Saints: Does analysis matter when both teams are capable of putting 40-plus points on the scoreboard? Arizona's Kurt Warner is nearly unstoppable in the playoffs. If Anquan Boldin is healthy, Warner will have a pair of 1000-yard receivers as well as Steve Breaston, one of the heroes of last weekend in the Cards OT victory over the Green Bay Packers, as targets and running backs Beanie Wells and Tim Hightower on the ground to keep the Saints defense honest. This game might be decided by turnovers and Darren Sharper had nine picks on the year, most of them in the first half of the season. The Saints had the best defensive passer rating in the NFL going into November, but fell apart facing the likes of Jason Campbell and Josh Freeman down the stretch. They finished fourth in defensive passer rating, but the final month of football exposed a defense that had trouble stopping the aerial game and Kurt Warner can be expected to take advantage of a sluggish secondary. The Saints throw a lot of different offensive looks at teams (four receivers, what is Reggie Bush on the field for -- to run or receiver) and is difficult to defend. QB Drew Brees is excellent at scanning the field to find the ideal target and at times it seems that he has more offensive weapons than team-mates. Arizona's D is under-rated and safeties Antrel Rolle, Michael Adams and Adrian Wilson and cornerback Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie provide the nucleus of a secondary that is more likely than most to disrupt New Orleans' aerial game. The Saints are healthy and rested, but Arizona has the momentum while New Orleans lost their final three games, only one of which they rested. Cardinals win 37-31. 3. Baltimore Ravens at Indianapolis Colts: The week after the Colts laid down for the New York Jets, former quarterback and current ESPN analyst Steve Young said taking the foot off the pedal down the stretch is a mistake because players "play on the edge of a razor" which he explained that NFL athletes are in a zone in which they do nothing but try to win but once they fall off that razor's edge, it is extremely difficult to get back on. That is the reason I think the Saints will have difficulty today (see above). That will be one explanation why the Colts don't win today, but another will be that they upset the football gods by resting players in a game that had playoff implications in Week 16. Anyone who reads this blog knows that I think Peyton Manning can perform miracles by lifting the entire team on his broad shoulders and carrying them to a victory. Down by 14 in the middle of the fourth quarter, no problem; Peyton has two two-minute drills in him. He has done wonderful things with young players such as Pierre Garcon and Austin Collie, who both have game-changing speed. Indy might seem a little unbalanced (second in passing yards, last in running yards), but they had three players who 10 touchdowns, a receiver (Reggie Wayne), a tight end (Dallas Clark) and a running back (Joseph Addai). Baltimore, on the other hand, has a great running game led by Ray Rice (first in rushing, second in receiving on the Ravens) and Willie McGahee. Indy is better against the pass than the run. Joe Flacco can chuck the ball deep but he might be nursing an injury; in last week's victory, he completed four passes (on 10 attempts, versus 52 running plays). Indy has a small defensive line, so there'll be more of the same from Baltimore: Run, run, run, run, run, pass. Run, run, run, run, run, pass. It won't put a lot of points on the board but it might be enough. Manning was being intercepted left and right in the final six games and if any team can pick apart a team, it's Baltimore. As long as the Colts don't go up by more than a major early, thus forcing the Ravens and Flacco to throw, the team that now calls Baltimore home will beat the team that used to call Baltimore home 23-20. Friday, January 15, 2010
Shaidle on Robertson Kathy Shaidle provides some perspective on Pat Robertson a NewsReal piece that should be read in its entirety: Pat Robertson claims to have about a million daily TV viewers. Assuming he’s not exaggerating, that’s a million daily viewers in a nation of 300 million people, and a world of billions. Politicians should stop mourning the troops as political theatre Canada's best columnist has a column everyone should read on how politicians respond to deaths of soldiers in foreign battle. It is disgraceful -- the politicians, not the columnist. John Robson concludes: The appropriate response to the enemy killing a soldier is resolution, not depression. On Remembrance Day I give solemn thought not only to the soldiers of Afghanistan, the two World Wars and Korea, but the Boer War, the Napoleonic Wars, the Armada, Agincourt, and for that matter Hastings, Stamford Bridge and Alfred's battles against the Danes. I am not convinced our party leaders know this history or feel gratitude. But I am quite certain it would be impossible to function, let alone make sound strategic decisions, if one were in the grip of such emotions on a regular basis. Haiti There are three certainties in life: death, taxes and crap will happen to Haiti. LifeSiteNews and the Family Research Council blog has links to charities worth supporting in the relief effort. Annie Lowery at Passport, Foreign Policy's blog, suggests forgiving the country's foreign debt. Mona Charen cheers the assistance the United States military provides to disaster-struck countries like Haiti. Without endorsing any of them, Tyler Cowen has a list of possible theories why Haiti is poor. Cowen finds the factors he listed unsatisfactory. I eschew the big explanation and think that some combination of factors Cowen listed is responsible: being a French colony rather than British colony, cultural backwardness (my words, not his) including voodoo, a lack of social cohesion that resulted from the peculiarities of the slave trade, and some version of the resource course (sugar cane). Haiti was poor and backward long before "the Duvaliers destroyed civil society." Thursday, January 14, 2010
A really interesting blog post This blog post by Dan Meyer is good for two reasons. The first is to show the price of various liquids. That is interesting enough. But the second part rewards the effort of reading the entire post because the author illustrates how to make learning interesting and useful while debunking students misconceptions about things. The Economist gets the prorogation story wrong Sometimes I think I'm the only person who doesn't invariably refer to the British periodical as "The Venerable Economist" or "The Prestigious Economist" or such. It's just another weekly news magazine, albeit one more substantial than Time or Newsweek and one that makes fewer egregious errors. But it does make mistakes, like in this week's edition which has both a condemning editorial and a finger-wagging news article on the issue of the prorogation of Canada's Parliament. The editorial, which ran under the headline "Harper goes prorogue" -- oh, by the way, read Warren Clements' Globe and Mail column from Saturday on how rogue and prorogue sounding similar is coincidental -- suggests that Canadians will come to the conclusion that the government is not in good hands while Stephen Harper is in charge. I would offer a different suggestion: proroguing Parliament will become not only a common but important aspect of managing minority governments in the future and that Harper was wise in doing so now to prevent insubstantial, gimmicky distractions offered by the opposition from consuming the time of the government. The editorials of The Economist are usually more even-handed and at least acknowledge opposing viewpoints, and not just the straw men arguments and partisan defenses that are relatively easy to tear down. The article has a lot of nonsense. It states that the timing of the prorogation announcement "said everything" about the Conservative government, explaining: Stephen Harper, the prime minister, chose December 30th, the day five Canadians were killed in Afghanistan and when the public and the media were further distracted by the announcement of the country’s all-important Olympic ice-hockey team, to let his spokesman reveal that Parliament would remain closed until March 3rd, instead of returning as usual, after its Christmas break, in the last week of January.I don't think The Economist goes far enough. Obviously, Harper arranged the deaths in Afghanistan to provide a distraction to his devious plan to single-handedly destroy Canadian democracy. The magazine adds: A gathering storm of media criticism has extended even to the Calgary Herald, the main newspaper in his political home city, which denounced him for “a cynical political play”..."Even' the Calgary Herald, the paper from the city that is Harper's base. In The Economist's world such papers are supposedly sheep; the Herald, in fact, is a sober-minded paper that leans conservative but is not a blindly partisan rag. I bet the editorial writer of The Economist can't name a Calgary Herald columnist or an editor at the paper. I'm just saying that the magazine probably knows little about the paper or its editorial positions and gave an ignorant or (worse) misleading impression of the extent of the pushback that proroguing Parliament engendered. ...There are plans for demonstrations on January 23rd, just before Parliament would have reconvened...A partisan, activist gathering of an indeterminate size that hasn't yet happened has been proffered as evidence of outrage among the broad public. The magazine is just groping for evidence of their vaunted backlash. ... “Parliamentary democracy is in danger,” declared Peter Russell of the University of Toronto, who was one of 132 political scientists who signed a letter condemning the prorogation and calling for electoral reform.A document, the magazine fails to report, that was surely in the works prior to the prorogation announcement. That letter attaches its call for electoral reform to the convenient issue of prorogation. The magazine leaves the impression that the letter was a reaction to the parliamentarian tactic, which it was not. These are flights of fancy, unworthy of such a venerable publication. Canadians might get fooled by such a media narrative, but worse the country may look like a banana republic to the international audience of The Economist, and clearly we are not, the rhetorical excess of the opposition and some venerable media quarters notwithstanding. Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Hate to say this... But ditto everything David Frum says about Sarah Palin's decision to join Fox News. Midweek stuff 1. Remember Biosphere 2? It is abandoned and Noah Sheldon has taken pictures. 2. Boston Globe Magazine reports that some Massachusetts municipalities are going to clamp down on private residences that have too much clutter: "Hoarders’ private problems can become a public nuisance, putting neighbors and firefighters at risk and dragging down property values." 3. Listverse has "Top 10 Badasses of the World’s Special Forces." Surprising that Spetsnaz was merely tenth. Was Deadliest Warrior wrong? You mean TV lied to me? 4. The folding electric bike for "anyone who doesn't think a Segway is dorky enough." 5. A Flash presentation of the eastern front in Europe during World War II. Pretty cool. If you have any interest in world history, especially WWII, watch this. 6. RealClearSports has the 10 most erroneous sports columns of 2009. 7. Mental Floss has "10 Futuristic Ads From the Past." 8. Arcade Fire perform Neighbhourhood #3 (Power Out). Liberals want government in the bedroom -- and every other room in the house Over at The Freeman Online, William L. Anderson notes the nanny statism of so-called liberals who don't follow their own rhetoric about keeping government out of the private lives of citizens; private life should mean more than laws and regulations concerning sexual activity and its consequences: Left-liberals, when discussing abortion on demand, often declare: “We don’t want government in the bedroom.” While I am not arguing about abortion rights, I will point out how the left really wants government in our homes.Anderson goes to various rooms in the house -- the bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and playroom -- to illustrate how government becomes involved in our private lives. Steroids and forgiveness Joe Posnanski writes an incredibly humane column about Mark McGwire saying it is time to forgive him. Tim Marchman says baseball world's treatment of McGwire is positively unChristian; Marchman suggests society's hypocrisy without uttering the word. Marchman says: To deny forgiveness is to fail to love another as yourself, a sin like that of not loving God with a whole heart. And... there you have people taunting McGwire, promising to forgive him if only he'll prostrate himself in new ways.Both are worth reading even if you are not a baseball fan or completely uninterested in the supposed steroid scandal. Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Something very important for conservatives to remember Cato Institute CEO Ed Crane offers his well wishes and fond hopes for Tucker Carlson's new enterprise The Daily Caller (generally billed as a right-leaning Huffington Post). I think this is very, very important for conservatives to think about: The supply-side movement, with which I am in agreement if the issue is too-high marginal tax rates, lost its direction because gurus like Jude Wanniski, Jack Kemp and Art Laffer explicitly adopted a strategy of promoting economic growth, not liberty, as the driving force for the GOP. Newsweek lies There is a big difference between "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage," which Newsweek promises on the cover of its current issue and "A Conservative Makes a Case for Gay Marriage" which is what its author, conservative lawyer and activist Theodore B. Olson, actually does. In fact, Olson accepts almost all the liberal premises of our contemporary culture (especially about equality) in making the case for allowing homosexuals to marry one another. Move on, there is nothing to read here. Three and out 3. Stop the presses! The Los Angeles Dodgers signed utility infielder Nick Green. Green was a vital part of Joe Torre's useless bench in 2008 when the latter still managed the New York Yankees and was an even more vital warm body for the Boston Red Sox when infield injuries accumulated and made fielding nine glovesmen difficult for the BoSox. Torre is nothing if not stupidly loyal to non-contributing players. 2. Stop the presses (II)! Mark McGwire has told the world what every baseball fan and pundit pretty well assumed was the fact anyway: he used steroids. I don't really care about his admission and care only slightly more than he actually used performance-enhancing drugs. Steroids doesn't make someone a better player because unnatural strength cannot make anyone a more accurate hitter. The key to hitting homeruns is not power but contact. All that said, I think he was a very good but never great player and I still admire the guy for refusing to talk to Congress, which had no business looking into the so-called steroid scandal in the first place. Tim Marchman's sarcasm-dripping column captures my reaction perfectly (why are we still talking about this?). I also agree with Rob Neyer that it would be nice if players didn't feel compellted to apologize if they aren't really sorry. 1. Stop the presses (III)! Bud Selig is an idiot. |
