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 30, 2011
Weekend stuff 1. I have long been amused by the descriptions of wine tastes and aromas -- "with a hint of cherry bark" raises the question: how do they know what cherry bark tastes like? -- but this tops the list of absurd: cat pee. Only in New Zealand. 2. From Fortune: Is Davos worth 75,000 executive hours? 3. To commemorate the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton, Crown Jewel Condoms has commissioned "a unique heritage edition Royal Wedding Souvenir boîte de capotes." Because, as Crown Jewel Condoms says, "Like a Royal Wedding, intercourse with a loved one is a unforgettable occasion." 4. George Stigler would have turned 100 earlier this month. Here's his Nobel Prize lecture, "The Process and Progress of Economics." 5. According to Slate, swords are the weapon of choice for nerds. 6. Animals. From Science Daily: "Bizarre Bioluminescent Snail: Secrets of Strange Mollusk and Its Use of Light as a Possible Defense Mechanism Revealed." The marine clusterwink snail emits light. The Daily Telegraph reports on the "panda cow". A photo gallery of "How to perform hip-replacement surgery on tiger." From New Scientist: "Sterile giant tortoises used as Galapagos lawnmowers." 7. An oddly compelling story from NPR on one family's ant farm. 8. This is worth taking a peak at even if you are not a soccer fan: Fast Company looks at Qatar's proposed World Cup 2022 stadium designs (some will be designed by Albert Speer's son) which include air conditioning of outdoor stadia on the Arabian peninsula in July and modular design so the 12 stadia can dismantled to become 22 stadia to be used around the world. Read the post, watch the video and enjoy the slide show. 9. Listverse has "Top 10 Truly Badass Saints." 10. Lex Luger & Ole Anderson vs. Ric Flair & Tully Blanchard in a cage match from 1988: Friday, January 28, 2011
Cowen on Egypt Two points that Tyler Cowen makes are worth noting -- one contemporary and one historial/big picture. First, Cowen says, "Cutting off the internet should signal to the populace that matters are dire and thus it may prove counterproductive." Such censorship may or may not backfire, but it certainly screams crisis. Second, Cowen says, "It is difficult to put together a 'Favorite Things Egyptian,' at least for this American, once you get past Mahfouz and music. Intellectually and culturally, Cairo has been punching below its weight for a long time." As Bernard Lewis has said, it is difficult to look at piece of Islamic art and tell what century it came from because Islamic art does not progress. This is not what Cowen is saying, but I am explaining why he can't locate noteworthy artistic achievement: the reason there is little Egyptian literature and art is because of the anti-intellectual and unimaginative religion of its inhabitants; Islam does not value human creation or achievement. Three must-read columns and one video on the SOTU All three columns should be read in their entirety, but below are some snippets worth highlighting. John Robson's in today's Ottawa Citizen: The speech was awful in several dimensions starting with a painful failed laugh line about oil company prosperity (the White House transcript obsequiously indicated "laughter" that their video, also available online, makes clear did not happen). You'd think someone in the White House would know what members of Congress find funny.Some more Robson: Obama used some variant of "win the future" nine times and expressed a desire to "move forward" three times, as though moving sideways at a 57 degree angle was an option others might favour. Such words are plainly uttered not in service of a thought but in place of one, and the President who uttered them is manifestly a doofus.Michael Gerson, who helped craft the words of George Bush's State of the Union addresses, wrote in the Washington Post yesterday that the tone changed but the sentiment did not: And when it came to his governing philosophy, Obama shifted arguments without retreating an ideological inch. The President does not acknowledge that America has an entitlement and debt problem (same thing), so: In his address, Obama spent much of his time rallying America to compete with China; he did much less to indicate how America will avoid the fate of Greece.Also in yesterday's WaPo, Robert J. Samueslon said, "It was a teachable moment - and Barack Obama didn't teach." The moment required a lesson in economics and the dire need to address entitlements to tackle the debt, not merely tinker with taxes or "wasteful" spending. Samuelson noted: What we got were empty platitudes. We won't be "buried under a mountain of debt," Obama declared. Heck, we're already buried. We will "win the future." Not by deluding ourselves, we won't. Americans think deficits are someone else's problem that can be cured by taxing the rich (say liberals) or ending wasteful spending (conservatives). Obama indulged these fantasies.As Megan McArdle says, "Libertarians hate every State of the Union address, and this one is no exception." Here is the CATO Institute's response: As Gene Healy said, "the American ship of state is sinking under unsustainable debt." Obama was clearly not up to the job of preparing America (both Congress and the public) for what needs to be done to right the ship of state. Thursday, January 27, 2011
Can something be unbelievably and predictably lame at the same time? Democracy Watch launches the Coffee Party in Canada. Despite obvious comparisons to the Tea Party, the lame Coffee Party insists it is nothing like the Tea Party movement: Unlike the Tea Party movement in the U.S., the Canadian Coffee Party movement is pushing only for well-researched and broadly supported changes that will make Canadian governments and big businesses operate more honestly, ethically, openly, representatively, efficiently and effectively.The sad thing is that you know that the people at Democracy Watch were really, really proud of themselves when they came up with the Coffee Party idea. Pride's going broke? But, as Kathy Shaidle notes, "we’re forever being told (Gay Pride demonstrations are) a great moneymaker for the city." Election speculation Most coverage of Canadian politics now centers on the possibility of a federal election and all the talk is whether the opposition parties will "trigger" an election over this or that that might or might not be in the March 22 budget. It is possible -- and I would argue probable -- that Stephen Harper will call an election without the government being defeated on a confidence vote in the House of Commons. He did that 2008 and he could do it again. It seems odd to me that no one is talking about this possibility, which although speculative is as speculative as "reporting" on what the Liberals, NDP and Bloc might do about a budget neither they nor the journalists who report on this stuff has seen. This is sloppy and narrow-minded journalism. 'Why do we care so much about sovereignty?' That's Tyler Cowen's headline on a post that could have been titled: "Why do countries exist?" Cowen says: "We need units which produce public goods and we need people willing to declare their income and pay their taxes and, sometimes, fight and die for those units. Therefore we need some amount of irrational belief in the idea of sovereignty, nation, and the like."While it is true we need an irrational belief in sovereignty in order to organize ourselves to produce public goods and to get people to pay taxes and fight wars, the more basic question is why do we need public goods, taxes and wars in the first place? Cowen also reflects on Bryan Caplan's post on strangers, and concludes that the price system is an insufficient glue to connect members of any largish organization unit (probably anything larger than a family) because free markets require institutions and cultures to work efficiently. Cowen says that, "Today's distributional pattern of nation-states probably isn't ideal (I would prefer smaller units on the whole)." That all sounds quite correct, but other than the highly impractical seasteading, what other option is there? It's not easy being green From The Guardian: "Just 31% of the biofuel supplied under the government's initiative to tackle climate change met its own green standards, the Renewable Fuels Agency reports." Capital punishment: a political opportunity After Stephen Harper announced last week that he supported the death penalty but had no intention of bringing it back, the pundits said Canadians do not support capital punishment. That's not true at all. At the very least, the public is divided on the issue, but in every Canadian poll I've ever seen on this issue, punishing murderers with death has at least plurality support if not majority support. The Abacus Data poll this week shows broad support for capital punishment -- 66%. The poll was a little strange because it asked three questions: do you support capital punishment and want it re-instated, do you support capital punishment and not want it re-instated, and do you oppose capital punishment and strongly oppose it be re-instated. (That word "strongly" could tip more people toward the undecided/don't know category, but leave that for now.) I do not recall a poll on any topic that as part of its headline question differentiated between support for X and doing something it and support for X and not doing something about it. That is odd and probably says more about the polling company and/or media sponsor (QMI). But the nuance could be politically useful. For one thing, voters who supported capital punishment but didn't want it reinstated probably wouldn't hold a pro-capital punishment position against a politician. The first thing to note is the overwhelming support -- two-thirds -- for capital punishment. That clearly shows that Canadians do not have serious qualms about putting murderers (and perhaps other serious criminals) to death for their crimes. Furthermore, a plurality (41%) support capital punishment and want to bring it back; another 25% support it but want to keep the status quo and a mere 28% oppose capital punishment. That 41% support for re-instating capital punishment is a higher level of support than any federal political party enjoys. So if the media insists on saying Canadians oppose capital punishment, does it not make sense to say that Canadians also oppose the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP and Bloc? The other important data point is the partisan break-down: both Conservatives and NDP supporters strongly support re-instating the death penalty -- 48% of Tories and 46% of NDPers. Another 29% of Conservatives and 22% of NDP support capital punishment but not bringing it back. Support for capital punishment runs well ahead of the political parties which could be an opportunity for political exploitation -- perhaps the Tories can poach NDP supporters on the issue. Even the Liberals and Bloc have large chunks of voters (30% and 23% respectively) who support capital punishment. While making the death penalty a political issue would have some risk because it could reinforce a media narrative (and general Toronto distrust) that the Tories are right-wing and intolerant fanatics, it also has upside of splitting the opposition parties from their base support. I wouldn't counsel the Conservatives to trumpet the cause of capital punishment but they should give it some consideration and, at the very least, not run away from the issue. Tuesday, January 25, 2011
SOTU I didn't watch the State of the Union because I was watching season 10 of Dallas on DVD (really) after a long hiatus from making my way through that series with my eldest son. I sort of glanced at Twitter every 5-10 minutes and the best tweet on the State of Union came from @DrewMTips: "So the lesson Obama took from the November elections was America wants more high speed rail." David Akin has the worst tweet. And Paul Ryan is my hero if he actually just said this: "Individual liberty requires limited government." My reaction. Economics of electric cars Electric cars may be good for the environment (they still have a substantial impact on the environment because electricity doesn't grow on trees) but they are lousy for the pocket book of consumer, even with the $7,500 bribe the feds want to give customers. Nicolas Loris and David Kreutzer of the Heritage Foundation look at the economic costs associated with electric cars and finds that most consumers will rationally stay away from them: Even if electric cars save fuel, they still cost more to own than similar gasoline-only vehicles. Edmunds.com lists the market price for a Chevy Volt at $41,000. The most comparable gasoline-only vehicle is the Chevy Cruze, which has a market price of $17,000–$22,000. The features on the Cruze 2LT, with a price of $21,000, seem to best match those of the Volt. Going electric costs an additional $20,000; however, the government narrows this differential through a taxpayer-funded financial credit of $7,500. Monday, January 24, 2011
Alito won't, Roberts might not attend SOTU I applaud Justice Samuel Alito for scheduling something else during the State of the Union Address so he cannot attend, and will applaud Chief Justice John Roberts twice as much if he just chose not to show up. (Fox reports on the possibility here.) The SOTU is no place for Supreme Court justices. It has become an unseemly partisan pep rally so it is undignified for judges to be there. If I were a Republican congressman, I would make a big due of being elsewhere on Tuesday night, perhaps bowling or watching Sarah Palin's Alaska. It is beneath the dignity of a member of the House of Representatives or Senate to sit and take a lecture from the president on what the legislative agenda of the United States should be. It seems so Soviet to me. May Alito and (perhaps) Robert be an example to other justices and lawmakers. Sunday, January 23, 2011
Some immigrants succeed at school, others don't Or, more accurately, some immigrants and their children flourish while others flounder. The Globe and Mail reports that Asian children generally do much better than the kids of Latin American and Caribbean immigrants. This is hardly newsworthy, but confirmation of a stereotype. What I find amusing is the assumption on the part of progressives that all immigrants are the same. We saw this in the Toronto mayoral campaign when Rob Ford questioned the ability of Toronto to seamlessly take in a million new immigrants in the next decade and Sarah Thomson and George Smitherman criticized Ford because all the immigrants they knew were entrepreneurs who contributed to society. (I abhor the assumption that shoe shiners, janitors, nannies, and taxi cab drivers do not contribute, but I'll skip this for now.) Not all immigrants are the same -- and that's okay. It is notable but predictable that, "Vietnamese students fare better in Montreal than they do in Vancouver, but no one knows why." Again, not all immigrants are the same -- even if they originate from the same country. Perhaps the type of individual that is attracted to Quebec has more intelligence, education, initiative, gumption, whatever. Perhaps Vietnamese immigrants to Quebec were legal immigrants who could afford a plane ticket while Vietnamese in British Columbia were refugees and boat people. The story of Canadian immigration is more complex than our concept of "immigrant" captures. And it is, frankly, a little racist to assume that all immigrants are the same. Can't split the popular and unpopular Richard Thaler writes in the New York Times: Perhaps the most unpopular feature of the health care legislation now in place is a provision that requires nearly everyone to buy insurance. It is known as the mandate, and it is the aspect of the bill that could end up before the Supreme Court. In contrast, nearly everyone seems to approve of the provision ensuring that pre-existing medical conditions won’t prevent you from finding affordable insurance, as well as the rule that prevents insurers from dropping you if you get sick.Thaler favours more government intervention than is wise and his compromises are not really compromises but ways to get more government without calling them mandates, but his point that insurance requires a large base of healthy customers to make coverage of more unhealthy people viable is something that neither side is acknowledging. My guess is that Democrats know what they are doing: creating an unsustainable insurance regime that will "require" more government involvement in the future. But Republicans are cowardly and don't want to tell the public the truth about how to finance health care. Saturday, January 22, 2011
NFL Conference Championship prediction New York Jets at Pittsburgh Steelers: As far as I can tell, the pundits are leaning toward the Jets and they generally like to point to the fact that New York beat the Steelers in Pittsburgh last month. Of coure, anyone can win but I think the Steelers have the edge. It is hard to beat a team on the road twice in one season; it is hard to win three consecutive road games in the playoffs; the Steelers will have safety Troy Polamalu playing this time; Ben Roethlisberger shines on the big stage. The Steelers need to stop the Jets on first-down runs and then force Mark Sanchez into a lot of third and long situations and wait for him to make a mistake. The Steelers D is first against the run, so New York RBs LaDainian Tomlinson and Shonn Greene will have their work cut out for them. I like the the match-ups of Pittsburgh WRs Mike Wallace and Hines Ward being covered by Antonio Cromartie and Darrelle Revis (or vice versa), because Revis can be over matched when receivers run cross routes, so watch for Steeler offensive coordinator Bruce Arians to call for a few. Much has been made about the Jets beating two former Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks in Peyton Manning and Tom Brady in back-to-back weeks, but neither of them is as good as Roethlisberger is under pressure, so Rex Ryan's blitz-happy defense might not rattle their opponent this week; sending extra rushers will open up either the third receiver (speedy Emmanuel Sanders or last week's hero, Antonio Brown) or tight end Heath Miller (who also missed the Jets game in Week 15). The Jets do almost everything well, but the Steelers do almost everything (at least) a little bit better. The exception is the offensive line, although Pittsburgh's O-line is not as bad as advertised. I see the Steeler defense pressuring Sanchez and forcing mistakes and stopping the run. Big Ben can always be counted on to make a game-changing Big Play. Should be a closely fought contest with neither side able to pull away. While Sanchez has engineered some impressive come-from-behind wins this season, it won't happen Sunday. Steelers edge Jets for the right to go to Dallas and the chance to build on their NFL-record six Super Bowls. Green Bay Packers at Chicago Bears: These two teams met in the first NFL playoff game -- before the NFL was the NFL, while Warren G. Harding was waiting to be sworn in as president, and two years before The Fountainhead was published). Da Bears are at home, but it's just a few hours from Green Bay and the Packers are accustomed to the cold and snow. The improvement of the Chicago O-line has been exaggerated and Clay Matthews and Erik Walden should get to Jay Cutler with relative ease. The pundits are saying that Aaron Rodgers won't have the serene indoors of the Georgia Dome to pile points on in, but if the outdoor weather hinders Rodgers's game, it should hurt gunslinger Cutler's, too. And if the weather and Matthews/Walden don't slow down Cutler, Packer CBs Charles Woodson and Tramon Williams will. They are probably the best CB tandom in football this year -- even better than Cromartie and Revis for the Jets. Rodgers was third in passer rating and the Packers were first in passer rating differential (+31.7) -- which Cold Hard Football Facts says is one of the best indicators of who will win a game. The Pack have rediscovered a running game with the emergence of rookie running back James Starks, although I think expectations for the kid have become unrealistic. He will be just good enough to keep the formidable Bears defense honest. Green Bay had the second best scoring defense and in two games during the regular season, kept Chicago to just 23 points. If the Packers defense has a serious weakness it is against the run (114.9 ypg and 4.7 yards per attempt), but luckily for them Mike Martz prefers to have Cutler heave the ball down field rather than hand it to RB Matt Forte. It won't surprise me one bit to see the Chicago defense do enough to keep the Bears in it until Devin Hester returns a kick for score or Cutler heaves a magical throw into the end zone, but I'm predicting the Packers eke out a narrow, tightly-fought win. Famous Kennedy quote is thoroughly offensive I meant to post this a few days ago. Don Boudreaux doesn't like JFK's famous quote, "Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country." He quote Milton and Rose Friedman to explain why JFK's much applauded quip is "detestable": "Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic ‘what your country can do for you’ implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man’s belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, ‘what you can do for your ‘country’ implies the government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary."Boudreaux adds: Free men and women abhor the very thought of being either wards or servants of the state, and are not charmed out of this attitude by soaring slogans.I would suggest indeed they have been charmed into servitude. How can anyone sell an argument against free trade? Don Boudreaux's open letter to Ian Fletcher, author of Free Trade Doesn't Work: Thanks for your e-mail today in which you offer to sell me a copy of your book Free Trade Doesn’t Work. Communist monopoly Metro reports on a new board game in Poland (click on the link to see a picture of the game): Officials at the Research Institute in Poland have come up with the concept, which will see players tasked with buying a list of essential items like bread and toilet paper.So it's like communism without the killing and ratting out your neighbours and co-workers. (HT: Marginal Revolution) Americans should embrace disharmony As Washington Post columnist George Will notes, it's totally American. Must-read column to understand that the United States is amidst the fifth period of "creedal passion" as the late political scientist Samuel Huntington called it. There have always been excitable times, causes and characters. Thursday, January 20, 2011
Abs are one thing... But I'd draw the line at women with guns. Well, depending what you mean by gun. Brigitte Pellerin says that "Abs on a girl are not necessarily ugly." And being fit "helps you handle more, ah, serious weapons." Click on her PWPL post to see what she means. Not surprising -- saw this coming from a mile away David Frum agrees with "every word" of a Paul Krugman column. Admittedly, Krugman isn't insane in this column, but still. And it's only the first time that Frum admits to agreeing 100% with a Krugman column. Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Really? I'm listening to my 80s on 8 on XM radio and they're playing what might be the worst song of all time: Buckner and Garcia's "Pac-Man Fever": Tweet of the day David Waldman: "Give a man a fish=socialism. Teach a man to fish--that's socialism, too. I recommend vouchers for private fishing school." I get that Waldman is being ironic. But he is inadvertently correct. Harper's magazine is still around? Or, what its difficulties can teach us about the inevitable disappointment of political power Harper's is on its deathbed. The union is fighting owner John MacArthur. It is simply delicious when leftist unions fight leftist management. Jacob Heilbrunn has an important comment about Harper's in particular but which applies to magazines in general: Obviously, it's tempting to paint MacArthur as a hypocrite. But there is a reason that he's right to recoil at his staff's manuevering. Essentially, MacArthur is running a philanthropic enterprise. He's not out to make money. He's trying to prevent his magazine from going under. Magazines such as Harper's resemble racehorses or yachts — they're the playthings of wealthy owners who run them as they please.Megan McArdle has two posts on the infighting and Harper's (here and here). I find McArdle leans too favourable toward Harper's but it neatly sums up my relationship with the magazine: Nor was I saying Harper's is a bad magazine; only that I've stopped reading it. It's very expensive, and it seems to have lost some of its urgency (for me, at least) since Bush left office. It's not a comment on the magazine's politics or quality; only on my taste, and budget.In a world of nearly endless options in opinion journalism and assorted trivia online, Harper's became superfluous; for left-wing political journalism, The Guardian and The New Republic are more timely, better written and more interesting, assorted left-libertarians more principled critics of the U.S. government, while Salon and Slate have more selection and are free. However, McArdle makes some observations about political magazines that are also true of political parties: Most political magazines flourish when they're in opposition, languish when their guy wins. Maybe you could question the decision to be overtly political, which made them vulnerable to this cycle, but I'm certainly not going to question it; only the owners and staff can rightly decide what a magazine is for.Opposition can consider the possibilities, but being in power (and sharing in it vicariously, in the case of magazines) requires consideration of responsibilities. That is why National Review and the Republican Party seems better when Democrats are in the White House. Likewise, in Canada, conservative parties are "better" (read: purer) in opposition than in power. Two takeaways from this semi-rambling post. 1) Harper's sucks but sucks more when their guys are in power. 2) There is a reason Stephen Harper disappoints Canadian conservatives. Three and out 3. The Process Report says the Tampa Bay Rays should bat Evan Longoria fourth instead of third in the batting order. He says that this conclusion is backed by the facts, but the sample sizes are small to justify the interpretation of the data in the way he does. I am willing to concede that perhaps it is best to bat Longoria in the cleanup position, I just wouldn't base it on a year's worth of situational batting data (numbers of outs and number of people on base) and place in the batting order dependent on the number of people on base in front of him in the first inning. To me, the better hitters should hit closer to the top of the batting order because every spot down costs a batter about 20 plate appearances per season. If you are the Rays, who would you rather give those 20 plate appearances to -- Evan Longoria or anybody else or combination of people? Basing baseball strategy on the probabilities of the first inning -- the only inning in which a team is guaranteed to get the 1-2-3 hitter to the plate in that order, and fourth if one of them reach base -- seems short-sighted to me. It is much better to put the bat into the hands of superior hitters more often than in the hands of inferior hitters. It is amazing how few managers, pundits and fans understand this. 2. Dave Cameron of Fangraphs explains why the Kansas City Royals just made the best free agent signing of the off-season: Jeff Francis is a bargain at $2 to $4 million in 2011 because he should be expected to leave some of his bad numbers in the high altitude of Coors Field in Denver and the atrocious Colorado Rockies defense. 1. Here's an incredible fact about Jamie Moyer (who is 47 years old and is hoping to play next season): after turning 30 he's won 233 games, fifth best overall. The other four, including Phil Neikro and Gaylord Perry, are all in the Hall of Fame. (Source: Rob Neyer) Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Tweet of the day Craig Calcaterra: "Typical Super Friends episode: Superman: We have to stop [this week's evil]! Aquaman: I'll be in the Great Lakes making sure they're OK!" More than semantics Scott Brison wrote a letter to the Ottawa Citizen and this line rubbed me the wrong way: You can't blame the recession for Stephen Harper's record of weakening our democracy, losing our seat at the UN Security Council, or damaging the environment.Canada did not lose a seat on the Security Council; we did not have it, it is not ours to lose. We failed to win a seat on the UN's Security Council, but Brison seems to think that it is Canada's seat, that we are entitled to it somehow like Liberals are entitled to Canada's federal government. Progress in Iran The mullahcracy is moderating. (Ever notice that mullahcracy looks like mullahcrazy on first glance?) Reuters reports: Iran has suspended a sentence to hang a woman at the centre of a global outcry about stoning, a member of parliament was quoted as saying on Monday.However, the New York Times reports: [A] death sentence for the murder charge had been suspended with the consent of Ms. Ashtiani’s children. Under the Islamic law of “ghesas,” the family of a murder victim is permitted to spare the guilty party from a death sentence.Iranian officials are talking out of both sides of their mouths and it is not clear what the sentence was or is and what it might be for (adultery or accessory to murder). And there is still the problem of the dubious conviction of Ashtiani -- Iranian prisons are very good at extracting confessions. The positive to take from all this is that contrary to what many neoconservative experts thoughts, Tehran may not be immune to international pressure and does appear to worry about its image. Not really a selling point Hamilton Spectator headline: "Bountrogianni the next Copps: Ignatieff." If Marie Bountrogianni doesn't beat NDP MP Chris Charlton in the next federal election, does that make the former Liberal cabinet minister a mere nobody rather than Nobody's Baby II? And if she is elected and the Liberals are still in opposition, do you think that the Grit trip down memory lane continues with Rat Pack II? Monday, January 17, 2011
Speaking non-truth to political power Tyler Cowen: The total is 4130 economists in the Federal government, as of 2008, and I believe those numbers are not counting consultants.There is no way that people in their political jobs will not violate truth and principle for political gain -- can't happen because truth-telling is not rewarded with the right incentives. That's something an economist such as Cowen should understand. Target coming to Canada Last week it was announced that America's number two "discount" department store chain, Target, was coming to Canada. I blame Sarah Palin and expect a flurry of deadly retail-related violence.  Four and down 4. Pittsburg Steelers 31, Baltimore Ravens 24: Any game in which the Steelers overcome a 21-7 half-time deficit is going to thrill the heck out of me. After an opening touchdown by Pittsburgh, the first half was dismal for the Steelers -- and their fans (myself included) who were both angry and disappointed. Twice the Steelers turned the ball over inside their own 20. Baltimore scored on both possessions, including Cory Redding's 13-yard touchdown after picking up a ball that was never whistled dead following a forced fumble against Big Ben. The Steelers stopped playing despite the ball never being whistled dead; that made Ben Roethlisberger getting burned while holding the ball too long near their own end zone that much worse. Steelers came out of the half and went on a 24-3 run, twice scoring off Ravens turnovers. Their defense limited Joe Flacco to 43-yards of aerial offense in the second half on just four completions; four of their five sacks came in the second half. Roethlisberger was limited to 226 passing yards in the game, but connected on a 58-yard play to rookie WR Antonio Brown on a third and 19 following the two minute timeout in the fourth quarter. The Steelers D didn't allow the Ravens to tie it up, forcing a four and out. The difference in this game was the quarterback: Pittsburgh had Roethlisberger, who had a 101.8 passer rating compared to Flacco's 61.1. Entertainment value: A+ 3. Green Bay Packers 48, Atlanta Falcons 21: While most pundits picked the sixth seed to beat the NFC's first seed in something of an upset, no one saw the blowout Aaron Rodgers delivered in the Georgia Dome. And it was Rodgers who led the Packers to victory (notwithstanding Tramon Williams' 70-yard pick six to close the first half to make the score 28-14 and a strong defense that kept the Falcons in check). Rodgers was 31/36 for 366 yards, 10 for 10 on third downs, 3 TDs and a spectacular 136.8 passer rating. Watching Rodgers throw perfect spirals was amazing. After falling behind 14-7 in the second quarter, Green Bay went on an unanswered 35-point run. Fourth quarter wasn't a lot of fun to watch as the outcome was no longer really in doubt. Grade: A through three quarters, but a final grade of B+ 2. Chicago Bears 35, Seattle Seahawks 24: The score flatters the 'Hawks, who scored 21 points in the fourth quarter, long after the final result was in question. Chicago went into the fourth quarter 28-3, and then they traded meaningless touchdowns to open the final quarter. Seattle didn't have much of a ground game and WRs Mike Williams and Cameron Morrah dropped passes. TE John Carlson left the game early after being concussed. Not much offense left for the Seahawks. Bears QB Jay Cutler became just the second quarterback (after the great Otto Graham, who did it twice) to throw two touchdown passes and twice run the ball into the end zone for a touchdown. Many football tweeters found the game was boring, but I really enjoyed watching the da defense of Da Bears, with their perfect formations and excellent execution. And there were two great offensive plays: 1) Cutler connected with TE Greg Olsen on a 58-yard play on the first pass of the opening drive and 2) WR Earl Bennett took a direct snap and rushed for 9 yards. Grade: B+ 1. New York Jets 28, New England Patriots 21: Jets defense was very good, fantastic in the first half in consistently putting pressure on Tom Brady that rattled his game and providing excellent coverage that prevented Brady from getting the ball up field, even with his usual short-pass strategy. Yet this game was unusual: the Pats possessed the ball for just under 35 minutes and ran 78 plays compared to 54 for the Jets, 26 first downs compared to 14 for the Jets. With those numbers, the Pats should have won, yet it wasn't even close until the final few minutes (21-10 at one point). The Pats made a game of it as the game closed, drawing within eight before a failed on-side kick. The Jets scored quickly, the Pats returned to speedily bring the score back within a possession, but failed in their second on-side kick in two minutes. Jets win. Pats are good enough that even after they seemed to have all but lost, they got within a possession and two-point conversion of tying the game. Entertainment value: A- Sunday, January 16, 2011
Tweet of the day OppoGuy: "I want to be impressed with Iggy's bluster. But every time I look at him, I see a less experienced Stephane Dion." Herman Cain running for president Or, The limits of a business resume Herman Cain is a former chief executive of Godfather’s Pizza and GOP senate candidate in Georgia and he is forming an exploratory committee to see if he should run for president. He is interviewed by NRO about his apparently Quixotic quest. The fact that he has never held political office is a plus, he says: The other response to when people say, “You’ve never held public office,” is, “That’s true. Most of the people in Washington, D.C., have held public office before. How’s that working out for you?”What he says is true, but the implication that having an outsider run things is wrong-headed. A background in business is insufficient experience for running for and being the president -- which is one of the problems with politics. Conservatives under-estimate how difficult -- and different than any other profession -- the political side of governing is. Businessmen generally make poor legislators and they are entirely unprepared for the presidency, which is not an entry level job. And that is why a political hayseed like Sarah Palin was unqualified to be on the Republican ticket in 2008, Ross Perot would have been a worse president than he was candidate, and Herman Cain will barely qualify as a footnote in the history of the 2012 presidential election. Topp on Iggy Brian Topp, the NDP strategist, has a mostly good post on the pre-election maneuvering of the three leaders of the federal parties and his analysis of Michael Ignatieff is spot on: Finally, there is the hapless Michael Ignatieff. What the heck is he running on? It's hard to say, but three different themes seem to be rattling around in there somewhere. Quick football comments Both Conference Championships next week have the sixth seed visiting the second seed: Green Bay Packers at Chicago Bears, New York Jets at Pittsburgh Steelers. Pack and Bears split their season series, while the Jets beat the Steelers in December in a week that Pittsburgh was missing Troy Polamalu. I'm stoked for next Sunday: Steelers are my family's favourite team (am I going to wear my Roethlisberger or Greene jersey?) while the Packers are the fam's second favourite team. The Packers and Da Bears have faced each other more often than any other two teams in pro football (180 times) but it is only the second time the two have faced each other in the playoffs -- the first time since the first-ever NFL playoff game. I enjoyed the games -- I'll have my ratings and comments about the games tomorrow, but it was a great weekend of football -- yes, even the Packers blowout of the Atlanta Falcons and the Bears beating of the hapless Seattle Seahawks. Sad (for me -- my wife is ecstatic) that there are only three games left in this season. Friday, January 14, 2011
NFL Divisional Round predictions Baltimore Ravens at Pittsburgh Steelers: The Steelers and Ravens are facing each other for the eighth time in 28 months. Six of the previous seven games were decided by four or fewer points so everyone expects another closely fought match. Assuming another nail-biter, analysis is of limited use as the game will come down to a late mistake or who has the last possession. I'll pick the Steelers for three reasons: 1) they have home advantage and home teams win about 75% of divisional round games; 2) Ben Roethlisberger is a bigger big-game quarterback than Joe Flacco; 3) Baltimore needs to establish the run game with Ray Rice but the Steelers have the best run defense. Steelers by three. Green Bay Packers at Atlanta Falcons: The Falcons are cooly and boringly efficient. Michael Turner turns on the gas and eats time by gaining yards on the ground while Matt Ryan supplements that with passes to WR Roddy White and TE Tony Gonzalez. If the Packers cornerbacks can take White out of the equation -- and they should be able to do that because Charles Woodson and Tramon Williams might be the best CB tandem in the NFL -- there is no other receiver threat and the Falcons become very one dimensional. Furthermore, Matt Ryan averages a mere 6.49 yards per attempt, which is barely better than Detroit Lions QB Shaun Hill (6.46). The Packers are a great team on paper: second best scoring defense and second best point differential, first in three of Cold Hard Football Facts eight quality stats, Aaron Rodgers had the third best passer rating in the NFL, but Green Bay was only 10-6 overall and needed a win on the final day of the season to clinch a playoff spot. The Falcons are rested after the bye week and don't make many mistakes (fewest penalties in the NFL, third overall in net turnovers). Falcons should win, but this is probably a close contest that Rodgers can win for the Packers. Atlanta barely won (20-17) in November after scoring a field goal with nine seconds left, but that was when Green Bay had no ground game; rookie RB James Stark has since emerged to keep opponents guessing. Packers win, en route to a Super Bowl game on February 7. Seattle Seahawks at Chicago Bears: I doubt the 'Hawks can 1) pull off back-to-back upsets or 2) beat Da Bears in Chicago twice in one year. Chicago's defense is clearly superior: fourth best scoring defense, third in defensive passer rating, sixth in Cold Hard Football Facts Defensive Hogs Index, and fifth in Football Outsiders total defensive DVOA metric (5th in passing defense, 7th in rushing defense, 5th in red zone defense). Seattle was a bottom third offense and according to most advance metrics, one of the worst five. Jay Cutler is getting better protection from his O-line since the 'Hawks surprised the Bears in October. Chicago wins convincingly. New York Jets at New England Patriots: The Jets certainly could win this game if their ground game can keep Tom Brady on the bench. And the hype for the Pats is getting ridiculous. But it is hard to see how New England is not going to win this game. A few simple stats: The Pats are on a 8-0 run and outscoring opponents by an average of 22 points in that span (299 points for, 125 points against), during which New England has a +74.2 passer rating differential. The amazing thing about that run is that it included five games against other playoff teams, including four that are still in the hunt for a Super Bowl. I'm not sure that Jets CB Darelle Revis can defend against Tom Brady's short passes to Wes Welker, but if he can then Antonio Cromartie needs to defend WR Deion Branch and TEs Rob Gronkowski and Aaron Hernandez. Having to contend with too many Pats offensive weapons will keep the Jets from keeping New England off the scoreboard, forcing New York to abandon the ground game which will make them susceptible to Mark Sanchez's mistakes. Pats aren't going to beat the Jets 45-3 again, but I don't see this game being close. John Robson on post-shooting blame game Ottawa Citizen columnist John Robson weighs in on the post-massacre punditry going on: The irony in commentary about toxic American political rhetoric after Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot is how toxic the commentary is.Robson points out that the extremist rhetoric full of hatred and violence comes from the Left. Not that Jared Lee Loughner -- you know he's an important assassin because we know his middle name -- had a political motivation because he is, not to put too fine a point on it, insane: Political rhetoric didn't make Jared Lee Loughner go on a murderous rampage. But when a deranged loner shoots a politician and a chorus immediately blames it on their partisan, intellectual or cultural opponents it's not just proof of a toxic strain in North American political discourse. It's an example of it. Thursday, January 13, 2011
Incomplete bio or selective amnesia Joe Peschisolido is running for the Liberals once again in the federal riding of Richmond in British Columbia. Here is his official Liberal Party biography. Here is the paragraph that notes his political experience: He was elected as Member of Parliament for Richmond in the 2000 general election. During his term, he served as the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. He was also the Vice-Chair in the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans; Citizenship and Immigration; Justice and Human Rights; Public Accounts; and Finance.No mention that when he was elected in 2000 in Richmond, he ran and and won as a Canadian Alliance candidate. He ran as a Reform candidate in the 1997 general election in Mississauga South, and in the 1993 general election and 1996 by-election in Etobicoke North. Furthermore, in 2000, he was considering running for the Canadian Alliance leadership but ultimately decided not to throw his hat in the ring. In 2002, he crossed the floor to join the Liberals and the next year he was named a parliamentary secretary. In 2004, he lost his party's nomination as the local Liberals selected Raymond Chan to be their standard-bearer. That's a lot of political experience that Joe Peschisolido -- or Joe Pesky Mosquito as some of us all him -- forgets to mention on his promo material. The Halton Catholic school board's 'inclusivness' policy LifeSiteNews.com reports on the controversy of the Halton Separate School Board, which had courageously done what it should have in upholding Catholic moral teaching in its inclusivity policies, has capitulated to gay activists to rescind that policy and allow gay-straight alliances (among other affronts to the Church's moral teaching). An impetus to this change was the election of Paul Marai, a homosexual activist elected to the school board last October. (Why is an active homosexual even allowed to run for a Catholic school board?) LifeSiteNews.com reports: Pro-family groups had warned in December that Marai would use his influence to overturn the policy. Though he made little issue of his activism during the campaign, he made his move only a month after being installed. On his website, Marai calls the ban “inappropriate” and accused the previous board of “wasting time dividing people” by enacting it.I will have more about this story, probably over at our Soconvivium blog at The Interim, later today. Advice to columnists who write about firearms At NRO Robert VerBruggen offers four tips on writing about firearms. He fleshes each point out a bit, but here are the most important points: 1. Don’t assume criminals follow laws...The only thing most liberals know about guns is that they don't like them. I Chose Liberty I Chose Liberty: Autobiographies of Contemporary Libertarians is a fantastic book about the various journeys to libertarianism (broadly defined -- the late Joseph Sobran has a contribution) by the likes of Ron Paul, Gordon Tulluck, Walter Block, Richard A. Epstein, Tyler Cowen, Bryan Caplan, James Gwartney, Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Jan Narveson, Andrew P. Napolitano, Gary North, Lawrence W. Reed, Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr., and James V. Schall, to name but a small few. You can read it free here. Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Guns can save lives At Room for Debate, the Independent Institutes's David Kopel says that oftentimes an armed citizenry will save lives by limiting the carnage of madmen. And John Lott says that letting citizens defend themselves will save lives by deterring would-be criminals. Kopel's contribution is worth reading for the Teddy and Eleanor Roosevelt anecdotes alone -- both packed heat to protect themselves, Teddy after rising to the presidency when he predecessor was assassinated. Monday, January 10, 2011
On political discourse post-shooting First, the best point made (by Tyler Cowen, of course): Political polarization has been rising since the 70s, and the importance of assassination in U.S. politics has been going down.Glenn Reynolds in the Wall Street Journal: There's a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn't derive from the innocuous use of political clichés. And former Gov. Palin and the tea party movement are more the targets than the source.Jonah Goldberg said on Saturday if he had his way the news shows would self-censor so no political partisans appeared on television for 24 hours in order to prevent the self-serving political spin that blames the other side. I do not know if in a world of blogs and twitter that such discretion on the part of broadcasters would be sufficient, but it would be most welcome. As Reason's Nick Gillespie says: How do you take one of the most shocking and revolting murder sprees in memory and make it even more disturbing? By immediately pouncing on its supposed root causes for the most transparently partisan of gains.A lot has been made of Sarah Palin's now infamous graphic showing which Congressmen her PAC was "targeting" for defeat using cross hairs. Politics uses war imagery -- just as any cause does ("war on cancer" "battle against X" and the "fight against Y"). I just don't see a connection between the cross hairs and shooting Gabrielle Giffords and think you have to be an idiot to make such a connection, especially when you have totally bought into the politics as war metaphor, working in and titling one of your books The War Room. Sunday, January 09, 2011
Ted Williams Kraft mac commercial The homeless guy with the velvet voice got a gig with Kraft. Here's the commercial and the recording of his voice-over. Economists on important and not-so-important subjects Robin Hanson on censorship -- notably the schizophrenic attitude the public has about it: in principle supporting all sorts of regulations but in principle opposing censorship, while at the same time favouring all kinds of government censorship. Tyler Cowen on "Should we subsidize or tax research into time travel?" -- which raises points on immortality (avoiding death through time travel) and morality (the butterfly effect and how the universe unfolds). As always, the discussion in the comments section is worth reading. Saturday, January 08, 2011
In my best Dr. Evil voice: one trillion dollars Page Tutor graphically depicts $100, $1 million, $100 million, $ 1 billion, and $1 trillion. A million doesn't look that impressive when placed beside a person in ten packets of $10,000 -- you could store it all in a shoe box. You would need ten pallets to move a billion dollars. A trillion dollars would require a warehouse for storage. Sunday NFL wild card predictions Baltimore Ravens at Kansas City Chiefs: I would suggest that neither side is what most people think these teams are. KC had 10 wins -- as many in 2010 as they had in the previous three seasons combined -- but that achievement came against an incredibly easy schedule and the Chiefs haven't beaten a team that finished better than 500 since opening week when they edged the San Diego Chargers. The Ravens are still a reputed defensive juggernaut -- and they seem like that when you watch them and how hard they hit opponents -- but the numbers don't bear that out: Baltimore's defensive hogs (Cold Hard Football Facts measure of the defensive line) are smack in the middle of the NFL (17th overall) and the Ravens are tenth overall in yards allowed (318.9 ypg) although they are third in scoring defense (16.9 ppg). Despite adding WRs Anquan Boldin and T.J. Houshmandzadeh before or at the beginning of the season, the Ravens are still not a good passing team (208.4 ypg, 20th overall). The Ravens grind the ball on both sides and opportunistically waits to cash in on the occasional bomb -- much like the Chiefs in 2010. KC led the NFL in rushing yards (2,627 -- 133 more than the 2nd place Oakland Raiders), led by Jamaal Charles: 6.4 YPA, 1,467 yards on 230 carries. Thomas Jones had 896 yards on 245 carries, good for 3.7 YPA, so there will always be fresh legs at running back. (That said, it seems odd to give Jones so many carries considering that Charles is rushing at Jim Brown-like levels.) The Ravens have the fifth best defense against the run (93.9 ypg) and allowed just 3.51 YPA, so the combination of Charles and Jones could be neutralized. So the Chiefs might need to rely on QB Matt Cassel, who was more than competent (93.0 passer rating and 58.2 completion percentage) and WR Dwayne Bowe, who led the league in TD catches (15). The problem for the Chiefs is that Bowe might be the only legit receiver the team has. Ravens will ride RB and short-passing option Ray Rice up and down the field, and ultimately to victory. I expect both teams to grind out their yards, but the Ravens have slightly more explosive ability on both offense (Boldin and WR Derek Mason) and defense (safety Ed Reed, hard-hitting linebacker Ray Lewis). Close and tightly fought, but Ravens will win. Green Bay Packers at Philadelphia Eagles: A rematch of the opening weekend contest in which Clay Matthews III knocked Kevin Kolb out of the game and his starter's role in Philly and Michael Vick into the MVP discussion. This contest also features the top two rushing quarterbacks. The Packers have great stats on both sides of the ball, but needed a victory on the final day to qualify for the post-season. The Packers lead the NFL in passer rating differential (a surprisingly accurate predictor of regular-season victories) and had a +148 points scoring differential which should translate into a 12-win season instead of the 10-6 record Green Bay ended with. Clearly they under-performed when you consider their statistics. Three weeks ago, the Eagles might have been the NFC favourite after engineering a 28-point run over eight minutes to score a come-from-behind victory against the New York Giants, but have been pedestrian over the final two games (admittedly without Vick in the meaningless season closer against the Dallas Cowboys), losing at home twice. Eagles were second in yards per game (389.4) and third in scoring (27.4 ppg). Packers were fifth in defensive yards allowed (309.1 ypg), second in opponents' passer rating (67.2), and second in scoring defense (15 ppg). Vick has been great as long as he isn't being pressured, so look for cornerbacks Charles Woodson and Tramon Williams to come around the edges at Vick. He isn't getting the attention that Vick, Tom Brady, Drew Brees and Peyton Manning get, but Aaron Rodgers was third in passer rating (101.2) and tied for fifth in completion percentage (65.7%). The Philly defense isn't what it once was (23.6 ppg allowed, 10th overall). I expect this game to be decided by big plays. For Philly there is DeSean Jackson is the most explosive receiver in the NFL, LeSean McCoy might be the most explosive running back in the league and Vick can run for twenty yards or more at any time. Rodgers doesn't have much of a running game to keep opposing defenses honest (twice he led his team in rushing yards), so Philly's defense can cheat a little and double cover Greg Jennings. Green Bay is the best team in the NFC and I wouldn't be surprised to see the Packers in the Super Bowl, but I think Philly can make more big plays which will make the difference in the wild card contest. Eagles edge the Packers at home. Innovation not creativity In 2006 in the pages of Business Week, Robin Hanson criticized Richard Florida's argument that society needs lots of creative people for a dynamic economy and improved lives: Despite this affirming chorus, much of the hoopla over creativity is a crock. Why? Because we are already up to our eyeballs in it. Make no mistake: Innovation matters. Nothing is more essential for long-term economic growth. But to get more innovation we may want less, not more, creativity.Hanson comes very close to saying (as I do) that the fetishization of creativity as self-actualization is infantile fantasy and moralistic self-congratulation. Friday, January 07, 2011
Saturday NFL wild card predictions New Orleans Saints at Seattle Seahawks: Seattle is now famously -- or infamously -- the first team in NFL history to make the playoffs by winning its division with a sub-500 record. And even its 7-9 record obscures how bad the Seahawks are; the closest loss Seattle suffered was by 15 points, and their average loss was by 21 points. On the plus side for Seahawks fans, that "close" 15-point loss came in October against the Saints (in New Orleans). The Saints were 11-5 and although not as dominating as in 2009 (last year they averaged scoring 31.9 ppg but this year topped 32 points only twice), they are 10.5 point favourites over their hosts. That said, there are good reasons to think this game might be more tightly fought than the experts are expecting. It is never easy to travel six hours diagonally across the country and then have to deal with the noise in Qwest Field. Matt Hasselbeck is back under center for the Seahawks, which is probably an improvement. The Saints look like a MASH unit with TEs Jimmy Graham and Jeremy Shockey, RB Chris Ivory, and safety Malcolm Jenkins probably all scratches for Saturday afternoon's contest. Here's the problem: name a player other than Hasselbeck that plays for Seattle. Leon Washington, the kick returner, is probably the best player on the team. Okay, name another. The "stars" of this team are other teams' castoffs. RB Marshawn Lynch couldn't keep his job with the lowly Buffalo Bills for crying out loud. And WR Mike Williams was recycled from the Detroit Lions, and he isn't even the best player named Mike Williams in the NFL. The Seahawks gave up 5,807 net yards of offense and 44 offensive touchdowns. Drew Brees should be able to light up the scoreboard, even if he is having an off-season --his 2010 passer rating is down 20 points from last year and he has thrown 22 picks (2nd worse in the NFL). Here's another reason Seattle will lose: Cold Hard Football Facts has eight "quality stats" they track and Seattle does not rate in the top half of any of them. Their average ranking among the 32 NFL teams is 23.6. The Saints, on the other hand, rank an average of 13.6, including fourth on offensive hogs (which rates the offensive line) which will face a 26th rank defensive line. New Orleans should be able to win an air battle or a war in the trenches. All that said, while victory is all but assured, I don't think it will be a cakewalk. New York Jets at Indianapolis Colts: The Jets looked like they were going to justify their pre-season boasting of a Super Bowl by starting the season 9-2. They were 2-3 down the stretch as Mark Sanchez seemed to regress and age (once again) caught up to LaDainian Tomlinson, who tailed off severely after an impressive start. The Jets defense doesn't seem as dominating when you watch them, but it is good: holding opposition QBs to completing just 50.7% of their passes, stopping opponents on third down, being fourth on the Cold Hard Football Facts defensive hogs index, and holding opponents running game down to just 3.57 yards per attempt. Rex Ryan has the reputation for being blitz happy, but 1) he doesn't do it as often as people think he does and 2) Peyton Manning is difficult to pressure. Indy has rediscovered their running game and they finished the season with a four-game winning streak and a more balanced offense with the return of Joseph Addai from injury and Dominick Rhodes who returned from his UFL exile. Indeed, the Colts have been a different team of late. For the seasons they were 29th overall in rushing yards (1,483) and didn`t have a 500-yard rusher on the team, but they ran for 534 yards over the final four games; in their first 12 games, they ran for an average of 79.1 ypg and averaged 3.5 yards per rush attempt, but over the final quarter of the season, they ran an average of 133.5 ypg and averaged 4.5 yards per attempt. Having that balance makes Manning a better quarterback even if the Colts are still missing pieces (TE Dallas Clark, WR Austin Collie). Also, the Colts defense seemed to get better as the season progressed, but with opponents scoring an average of 24.3 ppg, it puts a lot of pressure on Manning to get the ball into the end zone; in the nine losses the Colts have suffered in the post-season with Manning under center, they have averaged scoring just 14 ppg. The lesson is simple: want to beat Indy, prevent Manning from scoring. For New York, the game plan is similarly simple: Sanchez must throw often to WRs Santonio Holmes and Braylon Edwards and TE Dustin Keller, so the Colts defense will be stretched. If the Jets can get pressure on Manning and hurry him up, they have a decent chance to win. I doubt they can do it. Indy in a game that should go back and forth, or at least remain close, for a while. Thursday, January 06, 2011
What I'm reading and re-reading 1. The Issue is Life: The Christian Response to Abortion in Canada (1988) edited by Denyse O'Leary 2. The New Canadian Ethic: Killing our Unborn Canadians (1980) by David Dehler 3. Abortion in Canada (updated 1972 edition) by Eleanor Wright Pelrine 4. Morgentaler: The Doctor Who Couldn't Turn Away (1975) by Eleanor Wright Pelrine 5. Abortion: Readings and Research (1981) edited by Paul Sachdev 6. Morality and Law in Canadian Politics: The Abortion Controversy (1974) by Fr. Alphone de Valk 7. Abortion Politics: Canadian Style (1982) by Fr. Alphonse de Valk 8. The Secular State: Sixteen Year of Trudeau (1985) by Fr. Alphone de Valk 9. Therapeutic Abortion: The Effect on the Mother, the Family, Society (1989) by Catherine Bolger 10. The Law and Abortion: An International Study (1984, revised and updated) by Ian Gentles 11. Excerpts from The Big Red Machine: How the Liberal Party Dominates Canadian Politics (2005) by Stephen Clarkson, Trudeau and Our Times: Volume 2, The Heroic Delusion (1994) by Stephen Clarkson & Christina McCall, From Protest to Power: Personal Reflections on a Life in Politics (1996)by Bob Rae. That was last week and this week, and does not include about 20 old Interim and Campaign Life newsletters and dozens of archived newspaper articles. I'm finishing the first draft of the chapters on pro-life involvement in politics in the 1970s and 1980s for my book on the history of the pro-life movement (to be completed later this year and published in 2012). Over the next two to three weeks I'll be working on the Charter debates and abortion and street activism, before returning to pro-life politics in the 1990s and 2000s. Quote of the day "To me the abortion issue in Western civilization relates not to the 'health of the mother,' but to the 'health of society'." -- Diane Marshall, in The Issue is Life: The Christian Response to Abortion in Canada (1988) edited by Denyse O'Leary Nice story Ted Williams, a man with golden radio voice, who has been clean of drugs and alcohol for two years, hopes to get off street. The story and original news report is here (watch the video in the story because it has the best samples of his fantastic voice). In the CBS Morning Show interview he seems charming and humble in a sincere way. I hope he continues on his positive path. Wednesday, January 05, 2011
News about the future CTV has an interesting but ultimately silly video on what Toronto will look like physically in 50 years. How do they know? Why is this reporting. Some of the claims are not attributed. There are a lot of "will be" statements rather than "might be". The news report was not news, nor was it even presented as a possible scenario. It was presented as this will be the way it is. CTV said so. So it is true. They were reporting on the future in much the same way they would report on a budget the day after it was delivered: this is happening and this person said that about it happening. Nowhere in the video could I see crystal balls or other aids to such knowledge about the future. I understand Toronto will not be the same, but I'm willing to bet that much of CTV's reported future will not be the way the the report said it will be. And I was amused by the introduction to former Toronto mayor David Crombie who doubts the wisdom for planning five decades ahead: "Believe it or not, not everyone thinks planning 50 years ahead is wise," says the voice-over. Why wouldn't we believe it. Are we supposed to think that everyone is on board with a few "experts" and their plans for millions of Torontonians for the next half century? The last word goes to Crombie who is right to say that it is arrogance to plan what the city's needs will be that far in advance. And reporting on it? Nonsense. If I had a baseball Hall of Fame ballot First let me predict who will get in: pitcher Bert Blyleven and 2B Roberto Alomar -- 14th year and 2nd year eligible players respectively. That means Tim Raines will get robbed. I would be extremely surprised if Alomar isn't in, mildly surprised if Blyleven isn't elected, and shocked if anyone else got it. Anyway, I would cast five votes (out of a maximum of ten) and they would be: Pitcher Bert Blyleven: He had no great peak, no period of domination. Only received Cy Young votes in four of 22 seasons and never won the award. Only made two trips to the All Star Game. Had just one 20-win season (in his fourth year.) Only three times had an ERA among the top three in baseball. But his overall numbers -- 287 wins, 60 shutouts, 3,701 Ks in less than 5000 IP, 3.31 ERA -- are impressive. He's made his way from 17% of the ballot in his first year of qualifying to being on the cusp in his 14th on the strength of the sabermetric case for him. Put him in. Outfielder Tim Raines: He is the best player on the ballot this year, and for me it is not even close. 808 career SBs (on a 84.7% success rate) and a 385 career percentage with a super peak four years in Montreal. He is the second best leadoff hitter of all-time. That's not a knock. He's better than Andre Dawson, his long-time team-mate who was (undeservedly) inducted last year. Pitcher Jack Morris: His case is probably weaker than the cases for players I wouldn't vote for (Roberto Alomar, Rafael Palmeiro, Edgar Martinez), but he just seemed like a Hall of Fame player when the big game was on the line. The knock against him is that in 18 seasons, he never once finished in the top four in ERA -- that is, he was never among the leading pitchers in any single season. Yet from 1979-1988, he never once had less than 15 wins. Over his 18-year career he was among the top five in Cy Young voting five times and received votes two other times. His 254-186 record is percentage-wise better than Blyleven's and he had three 20+ win seasons. His 3.90 ERA is on the margin for Hall of Fame-worthy, but not so bad that it should disqualify him. Five times he received MVP votes -- which is pretty good for a pitcher. He was on three different World Series-winning teams and was instrumental in the Minnesota Twins winning it in 1991. Over time, he was consistently very, very good. All that said, I do not ever expect Morris to be voted into the Hall. Shorstop Barry Larkin: His eight year peak roughly matches Cal Ripkens eight best years, with added speed. Rest of his career wasn't shabby either. Wasn't very durable: just three seasons with 150+ games played. First baseman Mark McGwire: A case could be made that he doesn't deserve induction into the HoF even if he didn't use performance-enhancing drugs because his non-HR numbers weren't all that impressive (career 263 BA, terrible glove, no speed). But he finished his career with 583 HRs. Add to that, 12 All Star appearances in a 16-season career, receiving MVP votes 10 times, leading the lead in HRs four times, and twice knocking in 147 RBIs. Nothing shabby about his 394 career OBP. He'd get my vote. Admittedly, his 1998 was steroid-jacked but a line of 299/470/752 is damn impressive. At one time I would have voted for long-time Detroit Tiger SS Alan Trammell, but I don't think I would want to cast an overly expansive ballot and five seems like the right number. Trammell was a great hitter before shortstops were expected to be good hitters (contemporaneous to Cal Ripken and before Alex Rodriguez, Barry Larkin, Nomar Garciaparra, Derek Jeter). He was also a good fielder and he played for good teams. I wouldn't be offended if Trammell gained entry, I don't think he will and that it is probably a bit of an injustice. I'm just saying that this year I wouldn't vote for him. DH Edgar Martinez probably deserves inclusion as the best full-time designated hitter ever. I'm not completely comfortable letting him in and don't like the game of making players wait -- if they deserve induction, they deserve induction. But letting the DH wait a bit seems just. He can pretend that he's waiting out the defensive side of the inning. I wouldn't vote for Roberto Alomar for two reasons: 1) he never quite seemed like a Hall of Fame player when I watched him and I saw him play a lot, and 2) I never liked him. Never. Not even before the spitting incident. I have to admit on absolute pure numbers, he deserves his ticket to Cooperstown. He'll probably be voted in this year and there is nothing wrong with that; in fact, there would be something wrong if he doesn't get in. I just wouldn't vote for the guy. Long-time Houston Astros 1B Jeff Bagwell didn't seem like a Hall of Famer to me while playing. The numbers are impressive -- more 39+ HR seasons than Mickey Mantle and more than Reggie Jackson and Mike Schmidt combined. I don't put much stock in allegations of steroids use. I just don't think of Bagwell as a Hall of Famer because 1B of his time hit for a lot of power, so he never distinguished himself. Will wait to be convinced by statheads in a year or so and admit my error at a later date. Here's one of those power-hitting 1B: long-time 1B Fred McGriff can be made to sound extraordinary if you cherry pick certain stats. But he amassed a lot of impressive-sounding numbers because of longevity. 1B numbers need to be extraordinary and he never seemed extraordinary. Maybe that is a problem for the announcers and fans who just didn't properly appreciate him. Or maybe not. I don't really know. But his career line of 284/377/509 (in a hitter's era) is better than Eddie Murray's, and he's in the Hall. If there was a Hall of Very Good, he'd be there. A Hall of Ridiculously Consistent Goodness, he's there, too. But probably not Cooperstown. Ever. Rafael Palmeiro's career numbers put him on the cusp of serious consideration. In real life, serious allegations of steroid use makes it impossible for him to ever be inducted. I could vote for him, but won't to maintain the integrity of my fictional but non-expansive ballot. It would not offend me if Raffy were Cooperstown-bound, but I don't ever see it happening. Dale Murphy's peak seasons were amazing and they came precisely when I was starting to seriously watch baseball. In my mind, he was Hall of Fame when I watched him standing in the batter's box for the Atlanta Braves. Over those six peak years, he was in the All Star game every year, got MVP votes every years (including back-to-back wins), won five Gold Gloves, led in RBIs two seasons and led in HRs in two other seasons. He had six extraordinary years but not much else. He really doesn't deserve to be in the Hall, but I would be sorely tempted to vote for him. Larry Walker's career is a figment of the Coors Field imagination. His numbers are too context dependent and he doesn't deserve to be on the ballot again. Dave Parker has never had more than 25% of the HoF vote. He is in his final year of eligibility. He is not going to make it. Strong start to a career, his numbers came down to good rather than special. He was given serious consideration at one time because he played on the Big Red Machine and his super 70s. He would be the Hall of Very Good. Closer Lee Smith might get my vote depending on my mood. 478 career saves and he was the dominating closer of his age. But his other numbers are pretty marginal and I think that the save statistic is pretty close to meaningless. I wouldn't mind seeing Smith in Cooperstown, but I think over time, the case for Smith seems weaker. Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Does not appear to be parody -- hard to tell sometimes in Middle East The Daily Mail reports: A vulture tagged by scientists at Tel Aviv University has strayed into Saudi Arabian territory, where it was promptly arrested on suspicion of being a Mossad spy, Israeli and Saudi media reported Tuesday... Sunday, January 02, 2011
Julian Simon lives Five years ago New York Times science columnist John Tierney bet Malthusian Matthew R. Simmons $5,000 that the price of a barrel of crude wouldn't be $200 by January 1, 2011. Simmons passed away last Summer, so his estate will pay Tierney and Rita Simon, Julian Simon's widow, $2,500 each. The average price of a barrel of oil in 2010 was $80. Tierney explains: The past year the price has rebounded, but the average for 2010 has been just under $80, which is the equivalent of about $71 in 2005 dollars — a little higher than the $65 at the time of our bet, but far below the $200 threshold set by Mr. Simmons.When will the Malthusian pessimists learn? 256 I can't believe that the 256th and final game of the 2010 NFL regular season is the Seattle Seahawks and St. Louis Rams. And I can't believe I'm watching it. Go ... who cares. May the best team win. Saturday, January 01, 2011
Week 17 NFL predictions New England Patriots at Miami Dolphins: The Pats can win if they score on their first few possessions, but I don't see New England risking injuries to Tom Brady and Wes Welker in a meaningless game -- Pats have first overall clinched. Fins coach Tony Sparano could be playing to keep his job -- although The Sporting News reports his job is secure. Miami wins just their second game at home this season. Carolina Panthers at Atlanta Falcons: Not sure how much the Falcons will try, although first overall and home field advantage throughout the NFC playoffs should be incentive enough to go for the victory. The Falcons don't typically build a huge lead, but Atlanta will take the foot off the pedal if they are comfortably ahead. I don't see the Falcons winning by the two touchdown margin Vegas has as the spread, but a victory is all but assured. Cincinnati Bengals at Baltimore Ravens: As Cincy demonstrated against the San Diego Chargers last week, they can both win and put up the points (without Chad Ocho Cinco and Terrell Owens), but Baltimore has a pesty defense and a dynamic and diverse offense. If Pittsburgh loses and Baltimore wins, the Ravens can finish first in the AFC North and get the second seed and first-round bye. That's worth playing for. Baltimore does their part by beating Cincinnati. Pittsburgh Steelers at Cleveland Browns: Steelers offense has struggled, but winning the game and thus the AFC North and first-round bye could depend on whether Troy Polamalu plays. Pittsburgh should desperately want to play a home game rather than spending the playoffs on the road. Cleveland wants to play spoiler. They aren't good enough to do it unless Pittsburgh throws the game away by letting the league-leading scoring defense play at less than full strength. Cleveland, on the other hand, has looked pedestrian of late after scoring some mid-season upsets: Colt McCoy looked mediocre last week and Peyton Hillis is not the machine he was in the first half of the season. Steelers beat the Browns. Minnesota Vikings at Detroit Lions: Lions can finish out of the cellar with a win. Vikes might let Brett Favre play a series or two if he's cleared to play. That will hurt their chances to win because as Joe Webb has demonstrated in his game-plus of playing time, that the former third stringer is the best quarterback Minnesota had on the roster this season. Lions have just enough defense and just enough offense to eke out the victory and finish the season on a four-game winning streak. Oakland Raiders at Kansas City Chiefs: Not sure how much time the starters for either team will get, although Raiders coach Tom Cable might be wondering about his future as head of the team. Oakland is a real hit or miss team (three games with 500 yards or more of offense, but two games without touchdowns of any kind). Oakland wins because KC takes the foot off the pedal. Tampa Bay Buccaneers at New Orleans Saints: Bucs can make the playoffs and need the win to do that (combined with losses for the Green Bay Packers and New York Giants). Saints can win the NFC South and get a first-round bye if they win and the Atlanta Falcons lose. Tampa hasn't beaten a team that is currently better than 500, and the Saints might be the best team in the NFC. New Orleans will go on to win their eighth game in nine changes because they are the better team, the hotter team, playing at the Super Dome where they are extremely difficult to beat, and have everything to play for. Buffalo Bills at New York Jets: Mark Sanchez will start but who knows how long he plays and the Jets might be looking past the Bills to their first round of the playoffs. Seems like a perfect game for Buffalo to sneak past the Jets who save their game last week against the Chicago Bears, have had trouble scoring points on offense as of late. San Diego Chargers at Denver Broncos: Not sure how the Bolts approach the game. Broncs are giving Tim Tebow a test drive and he's been doing great. Denver scores the win at home in a high-scoring contest because Tebow has another monster game. Chicago Bears at Green Bay Packers: Da Bears could be playing for first overall if Atlanta loses earlier in the day, but the Packers can clinch a playoff spot with a victory. With questions surrounding the Philadelphia Eagles, Packers might be the most dangerous team in the NFC with QB Aaron Rodgers and the NFC-leading scoring defense (15.8 ppg). Da Bears defense will make life difficult for the Packers and Jay Cutler's arm keeps Chicago in the game, but Green Bay gets the job done and wins Sunday afternoon to punch their playoff ticket. Jacksonville Jaguars at Houston Texans: Jax is in a must-win game and doesn't have starting QB David Garrard or RB Maurice Drew-Jones, and instead will start former Buffalo Bills Trent Edwards under center for the first time this year. Texans can't defend worth a lick against the pass which a late Christmas present for Edwards and the Jaguars, but Houston has a potent offense. Houston eliminates Jacksonville. Tennessee Titans at Indianapolis Colts: A deeper analysis is certainly possible, but all you need to know is that Peyton Manning lifts the Colts on his shoulders and carries them to the playoffs. Dallas Cowboys at Philadelphia Eagles: Kevin Kolb is starting in place of Michael Vick who gets some rest. Philly has the offensive weapons and a opportunistic defense, although who knows how long their starters stay on the field because the Eagles have clinched the third seed and can't do any better or worst than that. Dallas has a terrible pass defense and their wins have come because Jon Kitna has been leading a potent offense. However, Stephen McGee, who began the season carrying the clipboard, is starting under center for the Boys. Eagles win because they'll commit fewer turnovers. Arizona Cardinals at San Francisco 49ers: Who knows? Who cares? Cards beat the Dallas Cowboys on Christmas day. The Niners picked one of Mike Singletary's coaches to replace him for a single game and no one thinks he'll be there in 2011. Flip a coin. Arizona. New York Giants at Washington Redskins: The Giants are the better team, but they are inconsistent and have terrible games. Eli Manning won't have WR Hakeem Nicks as a target which might be a benefit; if forced to hand the ball to running backs Brandon Jacobs and Ahmad Bradshaw (the latter is listed as probable), Manning can avoid being picked (four last week, 24 on the year). The Skins are dysfunctional. Giants win, probably convincingly. St. Louis Rams at Seattle Seahawks: The loss of QB Matt Hasselbeck to injury negates the advantage of 12th man in Qwest Field. (I love Brian Billick's line on No Huddle in which he said "the 12th man is very real, it's the first 11 I worry about.") I just don't think that Charlie Whitehurst can lead the 'Hawks to victory on the big stage. Rams rookie QB Sam Bradford isn't playing like a rookie. Rams defense is decent. St. Louis wins to protect the league from the scandal of a sub-500 playoff team. |