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).

 
Good things that happened in 2017

Washington Post has a list of 17 positive news stories from 2017. Some might quibble that some are partisan points and neither good nor bad, or debatable. Good news includes global and American economic growth, the heroism displayed by regular citizens after Hurricanes Irma, Harvey and Maria, declining teen pregnancy rates, and medical advances.

posted by Paul Tuns at 6:21 PM

 
Champions of the middle class?

From the Fraser Institute's 10 year-end facts for 2017:

• While the federal government has claimed it “cut taxes for middle-class Canadians everywhere,” the reality is that 81 per cent of middle-class families in Canada are paying higher federal income taxes under the government’s personal income tax changes—on average, $840 more a year.

• More than 60 per cent of lower-income families (those in the bottom 20 per cent of earners) in Canada now pay higher federal income taxes because of the federal government’s tax changes.

And that's before the full weight of Justin Trudeau's mandated carbon tax comes into effect, which will raise the cost of everything (food, fuel, building costs).

posted by Paul Tuns at 5:32 PM

 
The anti-science, immoral war against GMOs people

Mitch Daniels, president of Purdue University and a former governor of Indiana, writes in the Washington Post about the anti-genetically modified good crusade of well-off, well-fed westerners:

Given the emphatic or, as some like to say, “settled” nature of the science, one would expect a united effort to spread these life-saving, planet-sparing technologies as fast as possible to the poorer nations who will need them so urgently. Instead, we hear demands that developing countries forgo the products that offer them the best hope of joining the well-fed, affluent world. In the words of a gullible former Zambian president, “We would rather starve than get something toxic.” Marie Antoinette couldn’t have said it better.

As Daniels says, "This is the kind of foolishness that rich societies can afford to indulge. But when they attempt to inflict their superstitions on the poor and hungry peoples of the planet, the cost shifts from affordable to dangerous and the debate from scientific to moral." I'm with the late Pope John Paul II, who said in the late 1990s that even if GMOs caused harm, it was more important to address the immediate harm (starvation) and worry about the health effects later. Two decades later, most worries over the health effects of GMOs are either overblown or downright wrong. This is no longer a science issue but a moral issue and the (mostly left-wing) critics of GMOs are science deniers that are callous about the suffering of those half-way around the world. Not feeding the poor, starving people of the developing world under the guise that GMOs are not perfectly safe is wrong-headed; to not feed the poor, starving people of the developing world claiming that GMOs are unsafe is just wrong. To not feed the poor, starving people of the developing world when we have the technology to provide proper nutrition to them is malicious.

Recently, Simon Beard, a postdoctoral researcher at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, and Rachel Polfer, an undergraduate student in Biochemistry and Philosophy at Mount Holyoke College, wrote at Quillette about the use of GMOs in non-food products (for example genetically modified mosquitoes that could combat disease-spreading pests). They wisely counseled: "All one has to do is remember that the only reason most traits are selected for in a GMO is that they are in the interest of human beings, not that they benefit the GMO itself."

Opposition to GMOs, either due to ignorance or radical adherence to the precautionary principle, is really about denying vulnerable human beings to this new technology's benefits. This moral posturing is anti-people.

posted by Paul Tuns at 10:25 AM

 
The state is addicted to cigarettes

George Will makes an under-appreciated point: rather than costing the state (through increased health care expenses), the tobacco industry is good for the fiscal health of the state:

The strange, meandering path of tobacco — a legal commodity that is harmful when used as intended — to the present began in contradictions. They are crowned by this one: Many state governments are addicted to revenue from tobacco taxes. The federal tax on a pack is $1.01. The lowest state tax is Missouri’s 17 cents; the highest, Connecticut and New York’s $4.35; the average, $1.72. So, many governments have huge stakes in a steady supply of new smokers to replace those smoking kills.

Hence these governments cannot afford for their anti-smoking efforts to be too successful. Furthermore, if every smoker quit tomorrow, Social Security’s slow-motion crisis would accelerate and many public and private pension systems would be staggered by having to revise downward their actuarial assumptions about the number of people who will die before collecting many or any benefits.

In 1998, 46 states, in a mutually lucrative collaboration with trial lawyers (some of their $13 billion in fees amounted to tens of thousands of dollars an hour), sued the tobacco companies. The companies agreed to — if they will pardon the expression — cough up $246 billion over many years. The theory, more successful than plausible, was that health care for smoking-related illnesses makes smoking a huge net cost to the states. Actually, smoking might be a net financial gain for government: Cigarettes are the most heavily taxed consumer product and, again, many smokers’ premature deaths limit their receipt of entitlement benefits for the elderly — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, nursing homes, etc.

posted by Paul Tuns at 10:10 AM

 
Week 17 four games to watch (UPDATED)

Honourable mention: Jacksonville Jaguars (10-5) at Tennessee Titans (8-7), 4:25 pm: If your favourite playoff long-shot is playing, pick the Bills, Seahawks, or Chargers game. The Baltimore Ravens are in okay shape to make the playoffs even with a loss to the Cincinnati Bengals. I'm certainly open to Chargers-Raiders, Dolphins-Bills or Cardinals-Seahawks in this spot instead. If Seattle was healthier on defense, they'd be worth watching. If the Raiders weren't so lousy on defense and along the O-line, the Chargers would be worth watching but that game hardly seems sporting. If Jacksonville beat San Francisco last week or the Pittsburgh Steelers or New England Patriots lost last week, this game would have been meaningful for the Jags and would be higher than an honourable mention, but regardless of what happens this weekend, they are locked into the third seed. Jax could use the game to rest their players but after the league-leading defense surrendered 44 points against the Niners, they may want to go out with a better game. Jax has scored 30 or more points six times this season, including the last four in a row. They will be dangerous -- sneaky good offense with a dominant defense -- in the playoffs, but they might not want to enter the post-season on a two-game losing streak. Tennessee has lost three games in a row but are guaranteed a playoff spot with a victory (and even a loss if both the Bills and Chargers lose). If the current seeding holds, the Jags and Titans play again next week in the wild card game. The last time these two teams played, in week two, Tennessee won 37-16. Assuming they don't rest their starters, Jacksonville wins this time.

UPDATE: 2-4 down one, the #2 game is the San Francisco 49ers (5-10) at Los Angeles Rams (11-4) at 4:25. I'm not sure how I missed this game yesterday when I originally wrote this. After losing nine in a row, the Niners have won five of six and four in a row. Obviously San Fran can't make the playoffs, but with new QB Jimmy Garoppolo, there are people talking about the 49ers in the 2018 Super Bowl, which is a little premature. He put 44 points on the board against a dominant Jacksonville Jaguars defense last week. He faces another good D this week (Rams are sixth according to Football Outsiders, tied for eighth in points allowed). But can he out-gun a Rams team that is scoring 31 points per game? Rams can't do any better than third overall, but with a win they will face whoever sneaks into the playoffs (Atlanta Falcons or the banged-up Seattle Seahawks) instead of the team that comes up short winning the NFC South (New Orleans Saints or Carolina Panthers). Should be a lot of fun to watch, but San Fran's winning streak comes to an end. Expect a lot of talk about the future Jared Goff-Jimmy Garoppolo rivalry.

4. Washington Redskins (7-8) at New York Giants (2-13), Sunday 1 pm: This is certainly Eli Manning's last game in a Giants uniform. I'd bet on this being Eli Manning's last professional game, period. I'm predicting Manning leaves the game just like Barry Sanders did: exiting through the tunnel with no fanfare because people don't realize it won't be the field again. Take notice of a very good player -- not a deserving Hall of Fame player, but a very good player -- leaving after a decade-and-a-half of being the face of the two-time Super Bowl Giants and a career of accumulating counting stats in an era of ever-improving quarterback stats. Redskins should win and finish 500. Giants should secure the the second overall draft pick in 2018.

3. Dallas Cowboys (8-7) at Philadelphia Eagles (12-3), 1 pm: Although the Eagles have clinched first overall, they might want to give Nick Foles, who laid an egg in last week's victory over the Oakland Raiders (10 points until the final two minutes), needs more time with the starters after replacing MVP candidate, Carson Wentz earlier this month. ESPN rates this the third best game of the week from a quality of play point of view, even though neither team can do anything to change its fate. The 'Boys would probably like to make the Eagles look vulnerable going into the playoffs. It will be fun watching a Dallas team pretty well back to full strength see if it can recapture some of its 2016 magic. Cowboys eke out a narrow victory over the home team.

2. New York Jets (5-10) at New England Patriots (12-3), 1 pm: Division rivalry and the Jets would love to spoil the chances of the Pats winning and capturing the first overall seed in the AFC, especially after the controversial week six loss (video). The Pats are vastly superior to the Jets even were Josh McCown were starting but with Bryce Petty under center, it shouldn't even be close. However, the Jets often play the Pats close. The Pats are always fun to watch and they are playing for the right to take the wild card weekend off and then play two home games. The smart money says they earn that right on Sunday. Even if it's not close, watching the Patriots is always entertaining, from Gronk making defenders look silly to Tom Brady's pre-snap adjustments to Bill Belichick's game plans and chess matches.

1. Carolina Panthers (11-4) at Atlanta Falcons (9-5), 4:25 pm: Panthers could win the NFC South and finish as high as second in the conference -- and thus get a bye -- or finish with the fifth overall seed. The Falcons are in the playoffs with a victory but miss it if they lose and the Seattle Seahawks beat the Arizona Cardinals. This is the most meaningful game for both teams. (Interestingly, the Panthers, currently seeded fifth, are the only team that can displace the Minnesota Vikings from the second seed because the LA Rams and New Orleans Saints lost to the Vikes and are on the wrong side of the tie-breaker. According to Football Outsiders, Atlanta has a top ten offense and bottom ten defense. Carolina has a quality defense and special teams, and a slightly above average offense. The Panthers might be a slightly better team, while Atlanta has home field advantage and perhaps a little more motivation. This game is a coin-flip. My coin comes up Atlanta.

posted by Paul Tuns at 2:28 AM

 
What I've been reading

1. Pope Francis and the Caring Society edited by Robert M. Whaples

2. When They Go Low, We Go High: Speeches that shape the world – and why we need them by Philip Collins

3. Fake Science: Exposing the Left's Skewed Statistics, Fuzzy Facts, and Dodgy Data by Austin Ruse

4. Clashing over Commerce: A History of US Trade Policy by Douglas A. Irwin. This is the best book on trade in years.

5. Revolution by Emmanuel Macron. Most books by politicians are less insightful about the topics they write about than themselves. Revolution is less about the political, cultural, and economic transformation in Europe (and especially France) than it is about using that transformation to push Macron's policy agenda.

posted by Paul Tuns at 3:32 PM

 
Merry Christmas

The greatest gift -- after The Greatest Gift -- is the most perfect piece of music, the most perfect thing created by mere man, Bach's "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring."

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:00 PM

 
Week 16 four NFL games to watch

Honourable mention: Los Angeles Rams (10-4) at Tennessee Titans (8-6): Rams are fighting for seeding. Titans are fighting for a wild card spot. Rams are a diverse and exciting team to watch. The Titans are not. Meaningful game between a thrilling and dull team. If Tennessee was as good at ground and pound as they claim they are (or pundits think), this could be more fun, seeing how Jared Goff, Todd Gurley, and company manufacture a narrow victory. But Tennessee isn't very good and the game won't be that close.

4. Buffalo Bills (8-6) at New England Patriots (11-3): Both teams have something to play for: Bills are in the thick of the wild card race and the Pats are battling for first in the AFC and home-field advantage throughout the playoffs. This division rival has been too one-sided and few pundits have the Bills competitive with the Pats, but it is one of the more meaningful games for both teams and is one of the few games this week between two teams that currently hold playoff spots (Pats are first in the AFC, Bills are sixth).The reason this game isn't higher is not just the one-sidedness (Brady vs. the Bills) but that while the Bills playoff chances (according to ESPN) climb from 28% to 62% with a win, they only drop to 23% with a defeat. That's good for Buffalo because they are going to lose.

3. Jacksonville Jaguars (10-4) at San Francisco 49ers (4-10): Jax is fighting for a bye, but this game is less about the playoffs than seeing how Jimmy Garoppolo, who has been very good in his three starts for the Niners, does against an elite D. Jacksonville is trying to become the first team to lead in sacks, points allowed, and total yards allowed since 1970. Jimmy G in three starts for San Fran has 1,008 passing yards, with a 68.1 completion percentage, 8.92 yards per pass, and a passer rating of 94.6. San Francisco doesn't have to win, but the organization would like to see what their new QB does against quality competition. Jax wins, but it could be a close, low-scoring affair.

2. Seattle Seahawks (8-6) at Dallas Cowboys (8-6): Both teams still have a path to the playoffs if everything lines up perfectly and other teams cooperate (by losing). But the loser is eliminated tonight. Ezekiel Elliott returns after a six-game suspension, but Dallas has struggled because of injuries on the O-line (Tyron Smith) and defense (Sean Lee). Seattle has survived its injuries in the defense until they let the LA Rams put 40 points on them last week in Seattle. They are looking for redemption. Russell Wilson might have to pull off more than one Christmas Eve miracle to score the upset in Dallas. The Cowboys defense isn't very good this year, but it is good at rushing the passer and Seattle's O-line has been lousy at protecting Wilson, and while the franchise quarterback has made things happen all year, it's asking too much for him to do it, again, on the road. According to ESPN, Dallas has the second highest non-blitzing pressure rate and Seattle allows the second most non-blitz pressures on the quarterback. If Russell Wilson running around, extending the play is your thing, this will be your number one game.

1. Atlanta Falcons (9-5) at New Orleans (10-4): Battling for seeding and the NFC South division title (along with the Carolina Panthers). These are two offensive teams, with the Saints a bit better (third in scoring, first in total yards, second in Football Outsiders offensive DVOA). Falcons have a bottom ten defense while the Saints are a top ten defense, and that might more of a difference. Saints ruin the Falcons chance to win the division although Atlanta will stay in the thick of the playoff race. The outcome will affect other teams (seeding for each division winner and where the Carolina Panther finish). And this game could be a wild card or divisional playoff game preview.

posted by Paul Tuns at 4:04 PM

 
Ranking the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates

Washington Post ranks the top 15 Democratic presidential candidates. Dwayne Johnson and Oprah Winfrey are the top celebrity candidates, but Mark Cuban and Mark Zuckerberg are no longer on the list. The top three are going to be 79 (Bernie Sanders), 77 (Joe Biden), and 71 (Elizabeth Warren) on Election Day 2020. Jerry Brown, who is number eight on the list, will be 82. If Hillary Clinton were on this list would have another Terry McAuliffe. Oprah, former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, and Clintonite Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe would be in their late 60s. The younger candidates, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (#4) and California Senator Kamala Harris (#5) are hardline progressives. There isn't a conventional politician who would be a reformist Democrat among the lot.

posted by Paul Tuns at 3:25 PM

 
Europes

Tom Slater writes in Spiked-Online about how, despite the insistence that Europe is "united" in the face of Brexit, the continent is divided over the political project the European Union represents: "What we have here are two Europes. The continent is divided between east and west, north and south, and between political elites and the people they claim to represent." That would be more than two Euorpes.

The electoral victories in 2017 of Mark Rutte (Netherlands) and Emmanuel Macron (France) hardly ended the protest against Brussels or the debate over democracy, sovereignty, and elite rule. As "united" as Europe is, it is punishing Poland for legal reforms that Brussels doesn't like, which the European Commission claims to run afoul EU values. For limiting the independence of the judiciary, the Law and Justice Party government in Warsaw could lose its EC voting rights. This could create a larger riff amongst members with Hungary is vowing to fight on behalf of Poland. The point is that unless one is talking about the geographic fact of Europe as a continent, there is no singular Europe. And the domestic politics -- perhaps even foreign policy -- of the continent will continue to feature upheavals and challenges that the elite won't like.

posted by Paul Tuns at 3:00 PM

 
This is not proof that every vote counts

For years I have argued that no important election will ever be decided by a single vote. I'll concede that this qualifies as important; the Daily Press (via the New York Times) reports:

The Democratic wave that rose on Election Day in Virginia last month delivered a final crash on the sand Tuesday when a Democratic challenger defeated a Republican incumbent by a single vote, leaving the Virginia House of Delegates evenly split between the two parties.

The victory by Shelly Simonds, a school board member in Newport News, was a civics lesson in every-vote-counts as she won 11,608 to 11,607 in a recount conducted by local election officials.

Ms. Simonds’s win means a 50-50 split in the State House, where Republicans had clung to a one-seat majority after losing 15 seats last month in a night of Democratic victories up and down the ballot, which were widely seen as a rebuke to President Trump. Republicans have controlled the House for 17 years.

This is a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence. And it is impossible to realistically expect this to happen for the presidency (considering the larger voter pool and the Electoral College) or a federal election under the Westminster system (which are actually hundreds of single elections held at the same time).

The paradox of the Virginia example is that if 10 more people were motivated to vote because they were convinced "every vote counts" it is unlikely that the result would have come down to a single vote.

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:50 PM

 
Punditry

A few years ago, Canadian writer J.J. McCullough, who mostly appears online, wondered on Twitter how he could become a staff columnist for a major media outlet. Some journalist -- Stephen Maher, Glen McGregor, Paul Adams or someone like -- replied that in many cases experienced reporters are promoted to columnists, working their way up the journalistic ladder. That's true up to a point. There are exceptions. But McCullough's greatest obstacle is not his resume but his beliefs. They fall outside the safe zone of political commentary. He challenges too many shibboleths for any editor to comfortably give him 750 words twice a week in the prime real estate of a daily paper, the op-ed pages, or the back page of a magazine (to use some dated ideas).

Earlier this week, Henry Olsen wrote about media bias at Unherd, and while he doesn't deny there are ideological biases, he sees them working in less nefarious, but no less problematic ways. Olsen writes:

When I speak with reporters I know to be on the Left, the questions I get are almost always honest and fair, but reflect their presuppositions. They essentially are asking me to confirm or deny what they already believe and are genuinely perplexed if I give them an answer that doesn’t quite fit their paradigm.

The thing is, it’s the same on the Right. Conservative journalists ask me the same sort of questions only from their own, pre-determined view of the world. They express the same reactions when what I say doesn’t conform to type...

The fame, influence, and perhaps even wealth that flow from being television commentators (yes, many of those talking head experts you see are paid by the network they appear on) means that there’s a whole class of “experts” who know they are hired not for genuine expertise but for their ability to quickly and articulately place the question of the day into the recognised template. Right, Left, or center, the key to media success for sources and experts is not to educate but to propagandise and comfort.

Olsen's Unherd article is more about journalists knowing what they don't know and having a genuine curiosity to learn about topics and share that information with readers and viewers. But the aforementioned point that the purpose of punditry is to represent a particular tribe is important. It reduces journalism to entertainment but eliminating, or at least demeaning, the function of transmitting useful information and posing interesting, delving questions.

Philip Tetlock posted this cartoon about forecasters, but the point applies to television pundits and newspaper columnists in general:

Captures the insanity of the status quo: everyday, the media ignore tentative, well-calibrated forecasters in favor of well-connected blowhards pic.twitter.com/mbMPhxb9BG

— Philip E. Tetlock (@PTetlock) December 19, 2017

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:26 PM

 
This is the type of thing that leads Canadians to believe Justin Trudeau is not serious about terrorism

The CBC reports:

The Canadian government insists it's using "all available tools" to find, detain and convict citizens who have travelled overseas for the purposes of terrorism, but it hasn't submitted a single name to the UN committee that maintains a sanctions list of international jihadists.

UN Resolution 2253 encourages all member states to actively submit the names of individuals and entities that support ISIS and al-Qaeda.

British, French, German and American citizens all figure among the 256 individuals on the list. Arab countries have provided the majority of the names, but many other countries including Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Turkey, Bosnia, Nigeria, Tanzania, Indonesia and the Philippines have also listed citizens. Even the island nation of Trinidad and Tobago has a citizen on the list.

But there are no Canadians ...

Some Canadians who've joined groups in Iraq and Syria have risen to prominence in the jihadist world, but they still haven't been listed by their own country with the UN.

This detail is odd:

At Ottawa's request, Interpol has issued "red notices" for seven Canadians accused of involvement in jihadist extremism including Farah Shirdon, John Maguire and Khadar Khalib. But unlike the Interpol notices issued for those on the UN list, the public Interpol notices issued for the seven Canadians don't include passports, birth certificates, past addresses, or details about their suspected activities.

Public Interpol notices for UN-listed individuals also include aliases, typically several for each individual.

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:05 PM

 
Overcoming the nurture assumption, and why it matters

Bryan Caplan has a very good post on how people generally underestimate the role of genetics, and overestimate the role of upbringing, in determining what sort of person we (and others) become. Caplan notes that Judith Harris calls this bias "the nurture assumption." Caplan then explores reasons for this bias and extrapolates on one in particular: the role of pop culture, which Tyler Cowen summarizes thusly: "Due to TV, which shows us 'false families,' we overrate the importance of the environmental and underrate the importance of genetics." Caplan says that he spends more time with The Simpsons than any other family but his own. But we don't generally see the relatives of most co-workers and friends and therefore we lose sight of their genetic heredity (although I think we'd still be confused about the roles of upbringing (nurture) and genetics (nature) if we did see more of the family tree).

None of this is to deny that upbringing matters, although more on the margins than essentially determining who we become. The debate is not nature vs. nurture, but how much nature and how much nature and the free will decisions people make. More than once I have corrected strangers who have complimented me on the subway for bringing up my children correctly. Family members say that my wife Christina has done a wonderful job raising our kids. I point out that the best thing Christina and I did for our children was choose each other as mates (although I often word this less delicately which usually negates the assumptions the strangers on the subway made about my parenting prowess). Whatever improvements we made after conceiving them are minor improvements on the margins.

My working assumption is that 1) great parents (great at upbringing) greatly help their children with opportunities they wouldn't have otherwise, 2) good parents slightly help their children, 3) average upbringing parents have almost no effect on children except they can mildly harm outstanding children, 4) bad parents hurt genetically disadvantaged or average children, and 5) egregious parents usually do great harm to their children. That is, for 90% of parents, the environment they provide for their children will have no or limited effect. This should be a great relief to both parents and citizens. It means that parents need invest so much time and treasure in parenting, to not make their own lives so much more difficult by making their children the center of their lives. It's hard to screw up a kid. But it's also hard to turn them into incredible human beings. But properly understanding the roles of nature and nurture (and free will) can also help inform public policy as it probably means we don't have to worry about improving the lot of most people "for the sake of the children." It also means that public policy should focus on targeted interventions for high-risk families rather than middle class entitlements, at least if the goal is to improve the lives of children over time.

posted by Paul Tuns at 9:25 AM

 
The sad state of the academy

David Solway in The American Thinker describes why he quit teaching university which can be succinctly summarized as: school sucks. Solway quit the "decrepit circus" "some years ago" but his description applies even more today:

But the primary incentive for flight had to do with the caliber of students I was required to instruct. The quality of what we called the student "clientele" had deteriorated so dramatically over the years that the classroom struck me as a barn full of ruminants and the curriculum as a stack of winter ensilage. I knew I could not teach James Joyce's Ulysses or Thomas Mann's The Magic Mountain since they were plainly beyond the capacity of our catechumens – mind you, all old enough to vote and be drafted. The level of interest in and attention to the subjects was about as flat as a fallen arch. The ability to write a coherent English sentence was practically nonexistent; ordinary grammar was a traumatic ordeal. In fact, many native English-speakers could not produce a lucid verbal analysis of a text, let alone carry on an intelligible conversation, and some were even unable to properly pronounce common English words. I could not help thinking of Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's End, in which the children of the planet are all translated into some otherworldly dimension. I titled one of my books about our educational debacle The Turtle Hypodermic of Sickenpods, based on an initially mysterious phrase in a student's essay by which, as I discovered after long consultation, he meant to say "the total epidemic of psychopaths." (This is a true story.)

Of course, many of my former colleagues insisted that their students were "just great," that they constituted a "savvy generation," that they were "a privilege to teach." The degree of self-delusion is off the charts, though I suspect that one motive for such professional vagrancy is the half-conscious awareness of a guilty complicity in the advancement of decadence. The desire to vindicate their roles as teachers and to justify obscenely fat salaries takes precedence over simple honesty.

The problem is chiefly in the humanities and social sciences – English literature, cultural studies, gender programs, sociology, communications – where it must be frankly admitted that very few of the students enrolled have the intellectual equipment to meet traditional standards of achievement and performance. These faculties have become a holding pen for incompetents, now known as "snowflakes." For a variety of reasons – defective early schooling, poor parenting, widespread permissiveness – these students are in desperate need of "safe spaces," where they can hide from the real world and shirk the demands of mental maturity. They are taught not to think independently, evaluate competing doctrines, or master the tools of cognitive proficiency, but to feel good about themselves. Self-esteem subs for self-improvement. Moreover, they are materia prima for anti-Western indoctrination by their politicized professors, mentors, and departments.

To put it bluntly, the administration is venal and unscrupulous. Faculty is compromised and reprobate. The student body is a haven for ineptitude. Regrettably, the exceptions – for they do exist – cannot redress the balance.

This is the view of almost every faculty member and student I talk to about the state of the university today. At least the arts and humanities do not deserve government funding, but I've heard complaints that these maladies are beginning to infect the sciences.

posted by Paul Tuns at 11:19 PM

 
May vs Brussels

The Sun reports:

THERESA May will defy Brussels today to insist Britain will start striking new trade deals as soon as we leave the EU.

Brexit tensions exploded afresh last night when No10 was also forced to slap down the EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier.

Downing Street officials dismissed the veteran French politician’s claim there is “no way” the UK will get the bespoke trade deal Mrs May has asked for as just an “opening salvo” from him.

Mrs May will fire two broadsides of her own today to hit back at a set of stringent initial rules proposed by EU leaders when they formally declared the start of Brexit’s Phase Two – transition and trade talks - on Friday.

One was that Britain must stick closely to all EU trade policy throughout the two year transition period after Brexit Day in 2019.

But in a statement to the Commons today, Mrs May will tell MPs: “During this period we will prepare for our future independent trade policy by negotiating - and where possible signing - trade deals with third countries”.

There is a difference between saying this and doing it, but being tough in negotiations is one way to win concessions. The EU may look at Theresa May and figure she's weakened, so this demonstrates strength. But if May is political weak at home, the eurocrats don't want to risk seeing her replaced with a so-called Hard Brexiteer.

One reason I think May tolerates Boris Johnson's supposed freelancing is that it is a reminder of what Brussels will get stuck dealing with if they contribute to her removal from power.

Right now, May and Johnson are both playing bad cop, and it might very well work.

posted by Paul Tuns at 2:59 AM

 
Whirlpool and Washington conspire against American consumers

George Will:

The government is poised to punish many Americans, in the name of protecting a few of them, because, in the government’s opinion, too many of them are choosing to buy foreign-made washing machines for no better reason than that the buyers think they are better. If you are wondering why the government is squandering its dwindling prestige by having opinions about such things, you have not been paying attention to Whirlpool’s demonstration that it is more adept at manipulating Washington than it is at making washing machines.

In 2006, when Whirlpool was paying $1.7 billion to buy its largest competitor, Maytag, federal regulators fretted that this would give the company too much market power. Whirlpool said: Fear not, competition from foreign manufacturers such as South Korea’s Samsung and LG will keep us sharp and benefit American consumers. Now, however, Whirlpool, which is weary of competition, has persuaded the U.S. International Trade Commission to rule that Samsung and LG should be reproached for what, eleven years ago, Whirlpool said it welcomed: competition.

The U.S. market for washing machines has grown 35 percent in just five years. Whirlpool’s share of this market, although not the 70 percent it was in 2006, is still more than Samsung’s and LG’s combined 35 percent. In this happy circumstance, Whirlpool is profitable. It would, however, like to be more so, and it will be if the president accedes to the commission’s unanimous recommendation and imposes a “tariff-rate quota.”

This is a tax, paid by American consumers, on imports that exceed a certain quantity that, in the government’s opinion (formed with the assistance of domestic manufacturers), is excessive.

posted by Paul Tuns at 8:52 AM

 
Modern family

KJZZ reports on a complete Arizona family that transitioned from their birth gender to the opposite, starting with a son, then his brother, then their mother, and eventually the fiancée.

(HT: Hot Air)

posted by Paul Tuns at 8:47 AM

 
The Sunday Times interviews BoJo

UK Foreign Minister Boris Johnson talked to Tim Shipman of The Sunday Times. Much of the interview is on foreign policy (Russia, Yemen), but a large chunk, naturally, addresses Brexit:

Interviewing Johnson is always an exercise in postmodern theatre, where the principal actor breaks the fourth wall to address the audience directly. When I move him on to discuss Brexit I feign regret, explaining that my editor will expect me to ask him about this week’s cabinet talks on the type of trade deal that we are seeking. Johnson, as a barely reformed hack, is all too familiar with this tactic and gleefully announces: “I always used to say that when I got to the question I really wanted to ask!”

It is telling that, knowing the game, Johnson decides to play it anyway, putting down a firm marker on why Britain’s “end state” deal with Brussels must allow the UK to diverge from EU laws once we have left, rather than stay in the state of permanent close alignment that Philip Hammond and other remain-supporting ministers would prefer. This is the principal faultline in today’s cabinet.

“The prime minister has done a fantastic job moving us forward in the negotiations,” he explains, getting the loyalty bit out of the way. “What we need to do is something new and ambitious, which allows zero tariffs and frictionless trade but still gives us that important freedom to decide our own regulatory framework, our own laws and do things in a distinctive way in the future.”

It is an argument that Johnson expects to win. He points out that even Hammond has suggested that Britain should become a tech hub, with regulations more suited to innovation than the EU: “It was very notable in the budget speech that the chancellor majored on the idea of future regulatory divergence. Philip can see that we have a very original economy, very different from other European countries — tech sectors, bioscience, bulk data, this is a very innovative place to be. We may in future wish to regulate it in a different way from the way that Brussels does.”

Johnson acknowledges that going our own way could lead to “trading consequences” with tariffs and other barriers imposed by Brussels but the foreign secretary says Britain should grin and bear that while making the case for global free trade.

“We need to raise our eyes to the horizon and ask ourselves in 10, 20, 30 years time: is the world really going to be a series of mutually competitive trade blocs or are we going to be working in a system where there is freedom and free trade between countries, businesses, between individuals . . . in accordance with global standards? That is a very exciting future.”

This is the kind of sweeping, upbeat vision that the prime minister appears uncomfortable proposing. Johnson makes clear that he is prepared to fill the vacuum. Three months after his last 4,200-word screed on Brexit, he is working on a new intervention.

“The big project I have in mind — I’m going to write the liberal case for Brexit and why it’s the right thing to do for people who believe in freedom, people who want government to be close to the people. I haven’t had time to do enough on the positive reasons for doing this.”

This is news that will tighten buttocks in Downing Street. It is also much further than his aides were expecting him to go.

By the way, Secretary of State for International Trade, Liam Fox, has made the same case at both World Trade Organization events and in an interview with the Sunday Express about UK's future economic position after Brexit, including being a global free trade leader.

Johnson's interventions are helping the May government, the cause of Brexit, and, yes, Boris Johnson's positioning to become the next leader of the UK Tories and British prime minister.

posted by Paul Tuns at 2:29 AM

 
On 'evidence-based'

Tyler Cowen:

I don’t have a great fondness for the terms “evidence-based” or “science-based.” When they are used on MR, it is often as a form of third-person reference or with a slight mock or ironic touch. When I see the words used by others, my immediate reaction is to think someone is deploying it selectively, without complete self-awareness, or as a bullying tactic, in lieu of an actual argument, or as a way of denying how much their own argument depends on values rather than science. I wouldn’t ban the words for anyone working for me, but seeing them often prompts my editor’s red pen, so to speak. The most er … evidence-based people I know don’t use the term so much, least of all with reference to themselves.

This tacks closely to my view of the use of evidence-based or science-based points of view:

1) Use of the terms evidence-based and science-based is usually a way of identifying with one group or demeaning another.

2) Use of the term to describe oneself, one's political tribe, or one's views is unnecessarily self-congratulatory.

3) Use of the term obscures that most viewpoints are value judgements. We cherry-pick facts to support our views. Our feelings, more than our rational faculties dictate our politics.

4) People who claim to be evidence-based or science-based are selective in which evidence and science they follow. The most obvious example is how pro-choice progressives ignore the humanity of the child; they are prioritize other values (choice, women's rights), not science.

5) Although Cowen doesn't get to this, I'm inclined to think that progressive are better at using evidence to create new policy but conservatives/libertarians are better at using policy to evaluate existing policy. That's probably because many ideas work in theory or on a small-scale but not in practice or on a large-scale. Head Start, extrapolated from the High Scope program in Ypsilanti, Michigan (an intense early childhood education program) is a primary example of this.

posted by Paul Tuns at 5:37 PM

 
What I'm reading

1. The Vanishing Middle Class: Prejudice and Power in a Dual Economy by Peter Temin. I'm convinced that Republicans stoke racialist animus for political gain, but I reject Temin's argument that racism is fundamental to understanding class differences and growing inequality.

2. Janesville: An American Story by Amy Goldstein. The Washington Post reporter looks at middle class struggles in Paul Ryan's hometown.

3. Rethinking the Economics of Land and Housing by Josh Ryan-Collins, Toby Lloyd and Laurie Macfarlane. Policy-makers under-estimate the importance of land in housing prices and inequality.

4. The Art of Loading Brush: New Agrarian Writings, a collection of essays and short stories by Wendell Berry, focused on the importance of land -- a real thing to which work and home life can be attached.

posted by Paul Tuns at 1:31 AM

 
Four games to watch (Week 15 edition)

Honourable mention: Dallas Cowboys (7-6) at Oakland Raiders (6-7), Sunday night: Neither team is eliminated although both are longshots at this point: Dallas has a 10.5% chance of making the playoffs according to Football Outsiders while Oakland has a meager 2.5%. These teams were both supposed to be a lot better than their records indicate and pre-season predictions suggested this could be a Super Bowl preview. But the two teams have struggled (injuries, regression). Most pundits are predicting a close contest based on the even-ness of their stats over the course of the season, but Dallas is playing great football right now. Dak Prescott is getting great protection over the past two weeks and the 'Boys offense has scored 68 points over those two teams, and its D has given up just 24. Dallas keeps their playoff hopes alive.

4. Green Packers (7-6) at Carolina Panthers (9-4), early Sunday afternoon: Green Bay has a 15.4% chance to make the playoffs and the Pack may need to win out to make it. It starts with the return of Aaron Rodgers from injury and despite the odds, Packers fans seem reassured by the return of their star quarterback. We don't know what Rodgers is capable of returning from broken collar bone suffered in week six and he faces the sixth best defense according to Football Outsiders. The Panthers have a chance to not only win the NFC South but a first-round bye. That D should be enough to help them attain that goal and narrow the window for Green Bay's playoff chances.

3. Los Angeles Chargers (7-6) at Kansas City Chiefs (7-6), Saturday night: The teams are tied for first in the AFC West so this Saturday-night prime time game at the insanely loud Arrowhead Stadium is meaningful. According to ESPN's FPI Index, if the Chiefs win they have a 95% chance to win the division, but a loss puts their chances to just 21% (although their playoff chances would still be 44%). For the Bolts, a victory would give them an 81% chance at the playoffs while a loss would reduce their chances to 17%. The teams seem to be going in the opposite direction: the Chargers lost their first four but are 7-2 since while the Chiefs started 5-0 and are 2-6 since. The match-up to watch is Philip Rivers throwing to Keenan Allen, one of the most exciting wideouts in the NFL. Rivers will face a Chiefs secondary that is giving up 248.5 yards per game, fifth worst in the league. The KC O-line has been shaky lately and they'll have to protect Alex Smith against the best pass rush tandem in the NFL: Joey Bosa and Melvin Ingram. They'll be pesky and limit the Chiefs offense. Los Angeles score the road upset.

2. Los Angeles Rams (9-4) at Seattle Seahawks (8-5), late Sunday afternoon: Seattle has already beaten the Rams once this year (16-10), so if they win at home this weekend they'll be tied with LA record-wise but have the tie-breaker. Jared Goff and his deep set of receivers will challenge the 'Hawks defense. That's a great match-up. What isn't a great match-up is Rams pass rusher Aaron Donald versus the porous Seattle O-line. The Rams have one of the best rosters top to bottom while Seattle is missing not only half of their Legion of Boom but possibly their top two tacklers, linebackers Bobby Wagner and K.J. Wright. That Seattle victory over the Rams included five takeaways by Seattle which they probably won't replicate with all those injuries. The Rams are averaging 30.5 ppg, second in the league, and while they won't score that many, they should score enough against a battered 'Hawks D to take a commanding lead in the NFC West.

1. New England Patriots (10-3) at Pittsburgh Steelers (11-2), late Sunday afternoon: Before the season started, fans had this game circled as one of the best of the year, a presumptive AFC Championship preview. According to script, this game likely determines home-field advantage throughout the AFC playoffs. The Steelers have won too many games in the final minute of play. The Patriots got off to a slow start before winning eight in a row without ever allowing an opponent to score more than 17 points. Last week, the defense, receivers, O-line, and Tom Brady all played poorly against a Miami Dolphins team that looked like it was winning better than 27-20. The Patriots famously take away opponents best offensive weapon and dare opponents to beat them with whoever is left, but the Steelers have the best running back (Le'Veon Bell) and receiver (Antonio Brown) in the league: who is Bill Belichick going to neutralize? Both Bell and Brown can shred opponents' D for a massive number of yards. On the other side of the ball, Tom Brady usually shreds Pittsburgh's zone defense and Steelers coach Mike Tomlin stubbornly refuses to play man D against the Patriots despite the fact Brady has a 10-2 record against them. It pains me to say it, but the Steelers' scheme will cost Pittsburgh the game and the number one seed in the AFC as Ben Roethlisberger's offense will be too far behind to manufacture late-game field goal heroics for a win this week. But it should be a heckuva game.

posted by Paul Tuns at 12:14 AM

 
Deconstructing the administrative state

The New York Times: "60 Environmental Rules on the Way Out Under Trump." Bureaucratic rules that were not passed by Congress. More, please.

Remember, bureaucratic rules cost the economy nearly two trillion dollars annually, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

posted by Paul Tuns at 2:52 PM

 
Climate change 'science'

David Bidstrup at Catallaxy Files:

When I look at the variety of temperature “measurements” that somehow determine the “global average temperature” and the statistical jiggery pokery that is used to “process” them I wonder why anyone swallows the result.

Bidstrup explains:

Satellites measure “near surface temperature” indirectly. Wikipedia – the great climate change proselytising organ – says the following: “Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature."

The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances.

As a result, different groups that have analysed the satellite data have produced differing temperature datasets.

The satellite time series is not homogeneous. It is constructed from a series of satellites with similar but not identical sensors. The sensors also deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for orbital drift and decay. Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult”.

Added to this are a number of terrestrial measurements from ordinary old weather stations, but I cannot find a definitive number.

All of this data gets “processed” with “algorithms” that fill in the blanks with “estimates” and the output is a number that is meaningless in the real world – the “average temperature” of the earth that has an area of 510 million square kilometres.

Is your BS alarm screaming yet?

This is not to say that climate change science is all lies. But the data is manipulated, and those, including scientists, who have political or ideological agendas, can fiddle with numbers. But even if those numbers are not consciously altered for some end, the "science" is not a result of direct observation and voters and policy-makers should understand the limits of using such data.

posted by Paul Tuns at 1:30 PM

 
Rent-seeking is a nearly two billion dollar business in Europe

PoliticEU reports:

Lobbyists spent a record €1.7 billion influencing the European institutions in 2016, with 95 percent of that figure coming from countries that joined the bloc before 2004, according to an analysis of data in the EU’s transparency register carried out by POLITICO.

At a time when many Central and Eastern European countries complain of a pro-Western bias in lawmaking and in the apportioning of EU benefits — such as the medicines and banking agencies moving from London after Brexit — the data reflect the dominance of firms, think tanks and NGOs headquartered in older member countries but with powerful lobbying operations in Brussels.

PoliticoEU extrapolates:

Influencers based in Belgium naturally top the list with spending of €427 million because of the preponderance of Brussels-based lobbying operations. Next on the list are Germany-based institutions, who spent €181 million in the last year, followed by the U.K. at €154 million and France at €106 million. By contrast, Poland, which has the EU’s sixth largest population, came in behind Austria, Denmark and Portugal in terms of the amount of money spent by its lobbyists. With Belgium in the mix, 95 percent of the total lobbying spend originates from old Europe, but even excluding that country, the disparity is huge with 93 percent coming from old Europe and 7 percent from countries that joined in 2004 or later.

There are many reasons for this, but two simple ones are cultural and economic. There is more of a culture of pay-to-play in the West. This is not to deny that favoritism exists in Eastern Europe, but that favours are not distributed as a result of lobbying (they are perhaps divvied up more along familial, party, or ethnic lines). The economic case is simply that the West is a lot wealthier.

Fundamentally, lobbying is big business because government hands out a lot of money and makes a lot of rules. If you want to decrease the amount of money in political decisions, reduce the influence of political decisions in the economy. If you want to decrease the value of lobbying, you need to have a political culture in which spending to win favours is not a worthwhile investment. Big Government means Big Lobbying. And if the rules are changed, as long as there are advantages to doing so, businesses, NGOs, and other levels of government will find ways to spend money to win advantages.

posted by Paul Tuns at 9:10 AM

 
What legalizing cannabis is about

First, it's about increasing government revenues. Or what the Calgary Herald has called the government's pot of gold.

Second, it's not about helping some poor slob from getting a criminal record that will prevent him from crossing the border for a family vacation to Disney simply because he was enjoying a little recreational weed. It's about serving the professional class so they won't have to deal with undesirables when they purchase their pot. The CBC reports from the east coast:

This is what the end of cannabis prohibition will look like in New Brunswick: An upscale showroom with black ceilings, grey walls and a once-illicit drug displayed in brightly lit glass cases.

"Think along the lines of a jewellery store. Very chic, very modern, very clean-cut lines," New Brunswick Liquor Corp. spokesman Mark Barbour says in an interview.

"That's where the product will be kept, in locked glass cases, and from there the transaction will be made and proceed to a point-of-sale area." ...

In a single day, buying cannabis will go from a black-market purchase, steeped in surreptitious dealings and paranoid dealers, to a modern shopping experience. A drug long condemned as the stuff of street gangs, organized crime and outlaw motorcycle clubs will be branded, packaged and displayed in stores.

In other words, it's a class thing.

posted by Paul Tuns at 10:24 AM

 
Robot security guards

The Verge: "Animal shelter faces backlash after using robot to scare off homeless people." Some people will want to make this story about whether the poor on the street have a right to use public sidewalks. Fair enough. But others will look at the tech-replaces-humans angle. The Verge reports:

The robot in question is equipped with four cameras, moves at a pace of three miles per hour, and is cheaper than a human security guard — costing around $6 an hour to rent. Knightscope’s bots are some of the most popular robot guards around and have popped up in the news in the past. The same model of robot previously knocked over a toddler in a mall and fell into a fountain in DC. Knightscope says its robots are intended as deterrents, and for providing mobile surveillance.

Insert joke here that in the future, security bots will be scaring away homeless people who used to work as security guards at the animal shelter. Perhaps companies wouldn't invest in robots if they could pay a person $6 an hour, so once again it raises the question why is it better to be unemployed at the official minimum wage of $10.50 an hour rather than employed at $6? It is hard to look at this story and not wonder about the role of minimum wage requirements.

I assume that many people thought security guard was a job that technology would not displace. It was also a job that people without a post-secondary education could do. I'm not against the market deciding that it is better to have cheaper robots than people doing particular tasks and I understand that there will be new jobs in the future to replace some of those that will disappear. But we should worry about whether there will be enough jobs in the future for low-skill, low-education workers, and how (short of a universal basic income) those people are supposed to support themselves and their families.

posted by Paul Tuns at 11:25 AM

 
Brexit deal boosts May, Tories

The (London) Times reports that the UK Conservatives have pulled ahead of the Labour Party (statistically tied if you take margin of error into effect), Theresa May's lead over Jeremy Corbyn as choice of best PM has increased, and that by a two-to-one margin Brits favour May over Corbyn to negotiate Brexit:

The prime minister’s Brexit deal appears to have improved her public standing and edged the Tories ahead on 42 per cent of the vote, up two points on last week, with Labour unchanged on 41 per cent. The YouGov poll of 1,680 adults on Sunday and yesterday also suggests that the Liberal Democrats are unchanged on 7 per cent with the rest down one point on 10 per cent.

A one point lead is within the margin of error but is a boost for Mrs May a week after some Tories were speculating that she may not last until Christmas ...

Mrs May’s lead over Mr Corbyn has risen sharply, from four to nine points. Asked who would make the best prime minister, 37 per cent said Mrs May, up from 34 per cent last week, and 28 per cent said Mr Corbyn, down from 30 per cent last week. In a separate question about who voters would most trust to negotiate Brexit, 32 per cent said Mrs May, 16 per cent said Mr Corbyn and 33 per cent said neither.

posted by Paul Tuns at 1:09 PM

 
Never waste a tragedy that can be exploited for political purposes

Great (London) Times reporting, and layout:

Grenfell Tower survivors accuse hard-left and fringe groups of exploiting the disaster for their own ends pic.twitter.com/hfNCActkH1

— David Jack (@DJack_Journo) December 10, 2017

posted by Paul Tuns at 1:16 AM

 
Demanding better on Brexit from Theresa May's team

Richard Tice of Leave Means Leave writes at Conservative Home that Team Brexit needs to demand more from Theresa May, which includes a new front bench to better represent Brexit interests:

Our negotiators in the EU talks since the summer likewise have made all the basic mistakes of negotiating. They had lots of ammunition and negotiating leverage. Yet they underestimated the other side, didn’t set a deadline to conclude talks, didn’t convince the EU that we would walk away, and kept negotiating against themselves by offering more and more without demanding enough in return, thus giving away our advantageous position. Furthermore, they allowed the EU to set a false split of items on the agenda, to progress from one phase to the next, contrary to the legal terms of Article 50. They didn’t even get the EU to come to London for every other round of talks, a basic negotiating courtesy in the world of business, or at least middle on neutral ground ...

When things go wrong, in corporate or military life, it is normal to change the team at the top. There is a huge opportunity here to get on the front foot. The price of the Tory Brexiteer MPs support for the Prime Minister should be to change our negotiating team in the next few weeks.

David Davis should be thanked and moved upstairs into a non-executive style oversight role. Olly Robbins and Jeremy Heywood should be moved as far away as possible from these negotiations; they must bear a huge part of the responsibility for what has gone wrong. They should be replaced by committed Brexiteer politicians whose loyalties are not in doubt. The likes of Peter Lilley, Iain Duncan Smith, Jacob Rees-Mogg, David Jones and Dominic Raab should be brought in to do both the detail and the negotiations. They have the courage, corporate experience and legal knowledge to make the right judgements and demonstrate strong leadership. Never again should we rely so heavily on civil servants for such a critical negotiation of the national interest.

Such a move would make the EU realise that we are not going to be pushed over, bullied or trapped into a bad deal. Such a move would bring confidence to our own supporters that we had the right people doing the job.

Tice is a tad too critical of what Theresa May has delivered, but his points that the UK government didn't maximize their position and that Brexiteers can demand more from the weakened Prime Minister are accurate and important.

posted by Paul Tuns at 11:19 PM

 
George Osborne's paper

The Evening Standard, not The Enquirer: "Huge object passing Earth 'could be alien spacecraft from another part of galaxy', say scientists."

posted by Paul Tuns at 10:33 PM

 
If they ever reboot The West Wing, this is scintillating material for the show

The New York Times on Donald Trump's day: TV and diet coke:

Once he posts controversial [Twitter] messages, Mr. Trump’s advisers sometimes decide not to raise them with him. One adviser said that aides to the president needed to stay positive and look for silver linings wherever they could find them, and that the West Wing team at times resolved not to let the tweets dominate their day.

The ammunition for his Twitter war is television. No one touches the remote control except Mr. Trump and the technical support staff — at least that’s the rule. During meetings, the 60-inch screen mounted in the dining room may be muted, but Mr. Trump keeps an eye on scrolling headlines. What he misses he checks out later on what he calls his “Super TiVo,” a state-of-the-art system that records cable news.

Watching cable, he shares thoughts with anyone in the room, even the household staff he summons via a button for lunch or for one of the dozen Diet Cokes he consumes each day ...

During the morning, aides monitor “Fox & Friends” live or through a transcription service in much the way commodities traders might keep tabs on market futures to predict the direction of their day.

If someone on the show says something memorable and Mr. Trump does not immediately tweet about it, the president’s staff knows he may be saving Fox News for later viewing on his recorder and instead watching MSNBC or CNN live — meaning he is likely to be in a foul mood to start the day.

posted by Paul Tuns at 10:31 PM

 
Why the Brexit divorce bill is worth it

Rod Liddle in The Sunday Times:

Social Democratic Party leader, Martin Schulz, demanded a “European superstate” by 2025 and that all countries who disagreed be booted out. Good; with any luck the European Union will disintegrate before our first alimony payment has been made.

Schulz may soon be governing in coalition with Angela Merkel. And both are in accord with France’s faux anti-establishment president, Emmanuel Macron. A United States of Europe. Exactly what the remainers, the Europhiles, have been denying was on the cards for 20 years. I recall, when I was editor of the Today programme 15 years ago, receiving furious letters from the former Labour spin doctor Alastair Campbell when we reported EU plans for much closer political union. Don’t talk rubbish, he fumed, nobody wants that. And the same blank-faced denial from pro-EU politicians here ever since, all the way through that awful referendum campaign.

Yet it’s what the EU bureaucrats want — the European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker et al have been unequivocal — and what the leading German and French politicians want. So our own politicians were either deluded or lying. Serially deluded or serially lying. You have to admit, Schulz’s pronouncement was a generous gift both to Theresa May and Brexiteers: look what we’re getting out of, thank Christ. That’s got to be worth £39bn.

£39bn is easily worth avoiding the United States of Europe, an entity unlikely to improve upon the European Union.

posted by Paul Tuns at 5:20 PM

 
Power corrupts

Economist and Cafe Hayek blogger Donald Boudreaux:

But let’s be clear: politicians at all levels typically shove themselves unwanted, to satisfy their own lusts, into other people’s personal spaces. With trade barriers politicians harass – to satisfy their lust for reelection – innocent people who wish to import sugar, clothing, tires, and many other goods. With civil asset forfeiture they harass – to satisfy their lust for power – innocent people who use cash and recreational drugs. With occupational-licensing restrictions they harass – to satisfy their lust for the support of their cronies – willing buyers and willing sellers who seek only to peacefully do business with each other. And with taxes they harass – to satisfy their lust for lucre – those who create wealth.

That these professional harassers harass others also in more carnal ways should surprise no one.

posted by Paul Tuns at 10:42 AM

 
Trudeau is a 'checkers' boy

I'm a little late to this from the CBC on the failure of Trudeau's trade mission to Red China, but it's worth noting and repeating:

"I'm a huge supporter of progressive views on gender equality, human rights, environmental protections and labour conditions, but despite the nice-sounding rhetoric, trade agreements are just not effective in pushing that agenda forward," says Martha Hall Findlay, CEO of the Canada West Foundation, a think-tank that looks at Western Canadian issues.

She says trade agreements turn potential trade partners away.

"We like to think of ourselves as being nice and the rest of the world likes us. But when it comes to these trade agreements ... we're coming across as being patronizing, we're coming across as arrogant and frankly, we're coming across as being naive," Hall Findlay tells The Current's Friday host Piya Chattopadhyay.

"The rest of the world is playing chess and we're coming with our checkers."

Hall Findlay is a former Liberal MP and leadership contender.

posted by Paul Tuns at 9:51 AM

 
Jerusalem and the peace process

National Post columnist John Robson criticizes the of criticism of President Donald Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel being a threat to the peace process by noting that there it is all process and no peace. Really, what peace is there to keep? And how does one negotiate with the Palestinians when their reaction to the announcement that Washington will recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital is to escalate the violence? There is no peace to keep.

Robson argues that negotiations should incentivize good actions and disincentivize bad actions and for most of the "peace process," the Palestinians and Arabs have called for the destruction of Israel. That is a bad action. Israel's enemies do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in part because they do not accept the legitimacy of Israel as a country. The starting point for a real peace process would be the demand that representatives of Palestinians recognize the legitimacy of Israel and its right to exist. Robson suggests that perhaps taking action against their irrational position might cause Israel's enemies to rethink their demands. I didn't take Robson for being an optimist, but it's a nice thought.

posted by Paul Tuns at 2:45 PM

 
Four games to watch (week 14 edition)

Honourable mention: a pair of division rival games with big implications would have made the top four had the Rams or Jaguars had the type of year everyone expected from them before the season started, but all of a sudden their games are important. I'll pick the AFC North battle between the Baltimore Ravens (7-5) at Pittsburgh Steelers (10-2) on Sunday night just ahead of the AFC West battle between the 6-6 Oakland Raiders and 6-6 Kansas City Chiefs. Neither KC nor Oakland are having the type of season fans or pundits predicted, but a win would help as these teams struggle to win the division (tied with the Los Angeles Chargers). The Chiefs are the better team and playing at home, but are on a 1-6 run and don't look like contenders at this time. This game might be too depressing. The Ravens and Steelers play close, have the NBC crew calling the game, and feature two top five defenses according to Football Outsiders. The Ravens allow just 17.2 ppg while the Steelers allow 17.8, so it could be a great defensive battle. Pittsburgh has more offensive weapons and they play at home, which should give them the slightest edge as they try to keep pace with the New England Patriots (who have the Miami Dolphins on Monday night) atop the AFC. Baltimore is playing to maintain their wild card spot, which they might do even with a loss.

4. Seattle Seahawks (8-4) at Jacksonville Jaguars (8-4), early Sunday afternoon. This game got flexed from the early to late afternoon, bumping the New York Giants/Dallas Cowboys contest. Both these teams are second in their division but could finish first. The Jags have more room for error as they could lose and still sit comfortably in the wild card with a path to eventually taking over the division from a middling Tennessee Titans team. The 'Hawks are behind the Rams and dealing with a slew of defensive injuries. Jax gives up just 14.8 ppg while Seattle surrenders only 18.5 ppg. Jax has the most prolific running attack, but they face Seattle's seventh ranked rush defense which allows just 98.3 yards per game. I like Russell Wilson better than I like Blake Bortles to make plays. Seattle with the road victory.

3. Minnesota Vikings (10-2) at Carolina Panthers (8-4), early Sunday afternoon: Both teams have stout defenses and the Vikings have an under-rated offense (see my power ranking below). Carolina has a below average offense and is missing rookie WR/RB Curtis Samuel and TE Greg Olsen. It should be easy for Minnesota to take away Cam Newton's weapons: Xavier Rhodes, possibly the best cover cornerback, will take WR Devin Funchess out of the equation while the superior Vikings linebackers will neutralize Christian McCaffrey. Cam Newton will be forced to run it himself and sometimes that works, but Minnesota's front seven should limit the damage the physical quarterback does. Minnesota is fighting for first overall in the conference while Carolina is the middle of a three-way battle for the NFC South title and wild card. Their window gets smaller with a loss. Vikings win on the road.

2. Philadelphia Eagles (10-2) at Los Angeles Rams (9-3), late Sunday afternoon: I'm going to make this simple. These two teams are tied for the lead in points scored (30.1 ppg). It features the top two picks from the 2016 draft (quarterbacks Jared Goff and Carson Wentz). They are the top two teams according to Football Outsiders (Rams have a slight edge), with both ranked in the top four in defense. It would be no surprise if these two teams faced each other in the playoffs, perhaps in the NFC championship. Both teams are in the hunt for a first-round bye, even the top seed. Also, a win would give the victor the tie-breaker in case they have matching records going into the playoffs. It's close. Philly lost 24-10 in Seattle last week but played a closer game than the score indicated. They are probably too good to lose twice in a row. Eagles keep pace with the Vikings.

1. New Orleans Saints (9-3) at Atlanta Falcons (7-5), Thursday night: Saints are battling for a bye while the Falcons are trying to get back into the wild card. These two teams play twice in the final quarter of the season, so there is plenty of opportunity for Atlanta to not only gain ground on the wild card contenders, but possibly insert itself into the NFC South divisional title. That might be a longshot. Fun fact: Atlanta and New Orleans are tied for 20th with 17 passing touchdowns. Both teams are efficient with the Saints leading the league in yards per play (6.4) and the Falcons fourth (6.1). But the Saints score a lot more than the Falcons. Only the Eagles and Rams score more than New Orleans, which is average 29.4 ppg, nearly a full touchdown more than Atlanta (22.8 ppg). By traditional metrics, Atlanta's defense is a touch better than that of New Orleans, but advanced metrics have the Saints above average and the Falcons a bit below average. Both teams are good at getting to opposing QBs (NO has 33 sacks, Atlanta 32). This game is probably pretty even and perhaps you give the Falcons the nod because they play at home. It's too bad we probably won't see rookie CB Marshon Lattimore shadowing WR Julio Jones, which would be the best positional match-up of the weekend.

posted by Paul Tuns at 2:34 PM

 
Ludwig von Mises suggested topics for books

The Ludwig von Mises Institute:

Bettina-Bien Greaves took careful notes during Ludwig von Mises's New York seminars. Whenever he made a comment that suggested research paper or book, she jotted it down on a note card. She kept all these note cards and has generously agreed to share them with the public by sending them to us.

The Mises Institute is pleased to make them public for the first time.

Two -- of many -- ideas:

Irving Fisher "an excellent economist, except when it came to money — his approach to money was from the holistic point of view"

And:

"There is no book that answers the question, 'What ideas were responsible for the fact that the 19th century liberals did not apply the liberal principles to banking?' This is one of the most important historical problems because this was in fact the problem that brought about the fall of the liberal policies, of capitalism, etc.Liberal policies were discredited in the eyes of the public because there was credit expansion, and then always, after a few years, an economic depression and a crisis…. There was only one book that didn't consider the Currency School as a "school" of ignorant people."

Tyler Cowen observes: "most of them still have not been done."

posted by Paul Tuns at 1:33 PM

 
China Starbucks facts of the day

The New York Times reports that Starbucks just opened its largest store in the world in Shanghai. It is 29,000 square feet and will have 400 employees. Furthermore, Starbucks plans to open 5,000 stores in the next four years; they already have 3,000 locations in the country. The Times reports, "The company said it opens a store in the country at a rate of one every 15 hours."

posted by Paul Tuns at 1:13 PM

 
NFL Power Rankings (three-quarter season edition)

Power rankings can be different things to different people. Mostly they are the ranking of the best to worst teams. Almost the same thing but different is a ranking of teams that others do not want to play. Similarly, how close are they to making the playoffs. Some teams, like those that are rebuilding, should be judged on how well they are developing talent and creating the circumstances for future success. These rankings combine a bit of all these but mostly is ranking of the best overall team as it stands now and going forward. Number in brackets is the ranking from the halfway and quarter-season marks (half rankings come first).

1. New England 10-2 (2, 5): Simply the best team. The Pats are second in offensive efficiency according to Football Outsider's metric DVOA. On the other side of the ball, the Pats were dead last in defensive efficiency through the first five weeks but are 16th since week six. Tom Brady's offense is scoring 29 points per game (fourth overall), so being in the middle defensively means they'll win a lot of games.

2. Philadelphia Eagles 10-2 (5, 12): They aren't bad at anything and are quite good at a lot. According to Football Outsiders, the Eagles have the fourth best offense and third best defense; they averaging 30.1 ppg, tied for the league lead. They allow 17.9 ppg, good for the sixth best mark in the NFL (and less than a point per game from second overall). The team is third in total offense with 385.1 yards per game. Second-year QB Carson Wentz is the frontrunner for the MVP. Only the Vikings, Saints, and Patriots have thrown fewer interceptions and only Baltimore's defense has more interception. Their loss in Seattle had them fall out of first overall in the conference, but the Eagles look like the best in the NFC.

3. Minnesota Vikings 10-2 (9, 29): The Vikes have a reputation of being a team built around defense -- they have allowed the second fewest points, just 17 per game -- but they are sixth in offense and eighth in defense according to Football Outsiders, making them a complete game. Furthermore, Minnesota is third in giveaways (ten in 12 games). Minnesota is nicely set up for a bye, and right now they are ranked first in the NFC. They still face the Carolina Panthers and a Green Bay Packers team that could have Aaron Rodgers back, so they'll have a tough road holding onto the top spot. But a complete team that doesn't turn over the ball will be tough to beat.

4. New Orleans Saints 9-3 (8, 19): The Saints is averaging 29.4 ppg, third overall, and the offense isn't even depending on Drew Brees to move the ball even though they are second in yards per game (408.6). Brees is on pace to throw for fewer than 4500 yards for the first time since 2009. The veteran quarterback is also on pace to throw 23 touchdowns, the fewest he'd throw since 2003 and the first time he'd throw for fewer than 30 since 2008. He is also pace for the fewest interceptions in his career. Those stats reflect the fact the Saints have a great running duo in Mark Ingram and Alvin Kamara. The Saints are running for 142.6 yards per game, third in the NFL. As good as the offense is -- it's good every year -- the defense is doing decently. I wrote at the beginning of the year that when the Saints have an atrocious D (as it has in recent years), the Saints are a 500ish team, but when the defense is around league average, New Orleans become unstoppable. Right now, the Saints defense is ranked 11th according to Football Outsiders and the team is giving up 20.2 ppg, 12th overall. The team is giving up more than a touchdown less than they were last year. They are going to be difficult to beat because they can win in a variety of ways. Relatedly, the team has two legit rookie of the year candidates, cornerback Marshon Lattimore on defense and running back Kamara on offense, and they have a third effective rookie, Ryan Ramczyk, an offensive tackle.

5. Pittsburgh Steelers 10-2 (1, 2): According to Football Outsiders, Pittsburgh has the fifth best offense and fifth best defense. Le'Veon Bell leads in rushing yards and Antonio Brown leads in receiving yards. But when you watch the Steelers, they play down to bad opponents and have needed field goals in the final two minutes to beat middling (or worse) teams three times this season. As good as the Steelers are, they have a tough two weeks, facing the stifling defense of the Baltimore Ravens and then a home date against the New England Patriots. If Pittsburgh beats the Pats, the Steelers should win the AFC and the road to the Super Bowl will go through western Pennsylvania. It may not matter because at home or on the road, Tom Brady picks apart the zone defense the Steelers play. It doesn't help that linebacker Ryan Shazier, a dominant force on the D (he leads the squad in tackles (87), forced fumbles (two) and interceptions (three)), is out indefinitely after a gruesome injury on Monday night against Cincinnati.

6. Los Angeles Rams 9-3 (6, 10): Only one team is rated in the top ten in all three phases of the game according to Football Outsiders: second in special teams, fourth in defense, eighth in offense. They are scoring a league-leading 30.1 ppg (tied with the Eagles). The Rams face Philadelphia (home) and Seattle (road) in the upcoming weeks, and if they lose to the Seahawks, they are down a tie-breaker in the division. Until proven otherwise, though, this is a good, deep, and dangerous team: Jared Goff is playing well, Todd Gurley is one of the best running backs again (second overall with 939 rushing yards), the wide receiver squad is deep and diverse, and defensive tackle Aaron Donald is one of the most disruptive forces on any defense.

7. Seattle Seahawks 8-4 (7, 9): The defense is surviving absences from Pro Bowl CB Richard Sherman and safety Kam Chancellor but when the 'Hawks can't depend on their D, Russell Wilson becomes superhuman and takes over games on his own. Even when the O-line doesn't give him time, he makes plays with his feet, either eluding pressure to make a pass or running for first downs himself. Pete Carroll's squad is dangerous.

8. Jacksonville Jaguars 8-4 (10, 24): Football Outsiders ranks the Jags second in defensive efficiency, but if you prefer traditional metrics, Jax gives up 14.8 ppg, fewest in the NFL by 2.2 points and are first in total yards allowed (282.5). They might be the best defense in the NFL with the best cornerback tandem and playmakers in all three units of the D. The question is the offense. Blake Bortles is inconsistent and has had too many awful games for a quarterback on a team with deep playoff hopes: five games throwing for fewer than 200 yards, five games with passer ratings under 65, just 14 TDs in 12 games (against eight picks). The Jags run game is strong, averaging a league-leading 149.4 yards per game. Rookie RB Leonard Fournette has 822 rushing yards and seven touchdowns. This team can win on defense alone, but if Bortles strung together a few good games, no one would want to face the Jags. As is, they have the fourth best scoring differential in the NFL although they are technically behind the Titans for the AFC South division title. Ball control with the running game and a suffocating defense is a recipe for victory on the road in Pittsburgh or New England come January.

9. Carolina Panthers 8-4 (14, 17): After their 335-27 week 12 victory over the Jets, Marvin Harrison said on NBC that the Panthers identity is winning ugly. The Panthers have a strong defense and an offense that relies too often on Cam Newton running heroics. But in their game against the Saints last week, Carolina showed that losing ugly is also part of their identity. Penalties, failing to get first downs, sloppy plays. The defense can smother most opponents, but Carolina often finds ways to beat itself.

10. Atlanta Falcons 7-5 (13, 4): On a per-play basis, the Falcons offense has been one of the better squads this year. Due to poorer special teams their starting position is among the worse, meaning its tougher to sustain drives and score. While the Falcons are tied for third (with the Patriots) with 6.1 yards per play, they are 29th in plays per game (59.9), just behind Oakland. With shorter fields -- whether from better special teams or defensive play -- the Falcons could put up a lot more points than the 22.8 points per game they are putting on the board this year -- nearly two touchdowns fewer than their historic pace last season. Right now the Falcons are looking up at the wild card teams, but with four divisional games left -- two games against the Saints and one each against the Panthers and woeful Buccaneers -- a lot can happen. It won't be easy regardless of how good the offense is, but if Atlanta wants to beat New Orleans and Carolina, Julio Jones will need more games like week 12 (253 yards and two TDs) than week 13 (24 yards, no TDs). In fact, Jones has caught a touchdown pass in only two games this year.

11. Los Angeles Chargers 6-6 (15, 21): The Bolts started 0-4 and according to Football Outsiders, their playoff chances were below 1%. But three of those losses were by three points or less and two of their defeats were the result of last second missed field goals. When LA was 3-5, I wrote, "LA has a path to the playoffs in the weak AFC. It's a long-shot, but less of a long-shot than most fans realize." Their chances are now in the low 30s depending on your favourite forecasting metric. Philip Rivers is fourth in passing yards and is tied for seventh in TD passes (21). The pass rush duo of Joey Bosa and Melvin Ingram is the best in the league (20 combined sacks). The Bolts are on a 6-2 run and while the Chiefs are still the favourites to win the division, the Bolts look to be the much better team at this point.

12. Dallas Cowboys 6-6 (12, 11): The O-line has suffered injuries, first to LT Tyrone Smith and later to center Zack Martin and it's hurt Dak Prescott more than him missing their sophomore running back, who is out six games due to suspension. But just as Bill Barnwell explained what's wrong with the 'Boys offense, Dallas scored 38 against the Redskins last Thursday. More than problems with their offense, the defense is missing linebacker Sean Lee. Before holding Washington to 14 points last week, Dallas allowed 82 points in their previous three games. With winnable games against the Giants and Raiders and difficult contests against the Seahawks and Eagles, it looks like a 500 season for a team that had high hopes for 2017.

13 Kansas City Chiefs 6-6 (4, 1): After their 5-0 start, KC is 1-6 including a loss to the 2-10 Giants. Beginning in week nine, the Chiefs scored 17, 9, and 10 points in their losses and in week 13 they put up 31 points against the Jets and their defense surrenders 38. Nothing seems to be going right to Andy Reid's team and despite calls to replace Alex Smith with rookie QB Pat Mahomes, it isn't the quarterback that is costing the Chiefs victories. The lack of a pass rush is exposing a secondary that is sorely missing safety Eric Berry. Rookie Kareem Hunt has not been making the explosive plays he was in the first quarter of the season when everything was going right for KC. There is too much talent for the Chiefs to continue losing, but this seems like a team in serious free-fall and ranking them in the top half seems wrong. But you can't count out a team that has so many playmakers on offense, a quarterback that seldom turns over the ball, and a defense capable of keeping opponents to under 20 points.

14. Baltimore Ravens 7-5 (21, 26): Baltimore's offense is terrible: 288.5 total yards per game (third worst overall) and 173.0 passing yards per game (second worse). However, according to Football Outsiders, the Ravens have the best defense and best special teams. Despite Joe Flacco's poor, season-long imitation of pro quarterbacking, the Ravens are an overwhelming favourite for one of the two wild card spots. Baltimore will win with the occasional successful deep pass or kick return or defensive score and a giant collection of field goals while allowing just 17.2 ppg. The Jacksonville Jaguars are the new Baltimore Ravens, so the Ravens are now the AFC's version of the Panthers: winning ugly.

15. Washington Redskins 5-7 (17, 16): Kirk Cousins is third in TDs (21) and has just six picks. The O-line and defense has been riddled with injuries. The 'Skins resume isn't that bad with two losses against the Eagles and 500-Cowboys (including when they were healthy), and defeats at the hands of the Vikings, Saints, and the hot-start Chiefs. They've beaten the Rams and the Seahawks (in Seattle). Injuries and schedule explain their record.

16. Buffalo Bills 6-6 (11, 13): After a 5-2 start, they've gone 1-4 and in the middle of a playoff race experimented with a quarterback switch that didn't work out. Benching Tyrod Taylor, an average quarterback that makes big plays and missing obvious plays, for mid-round pick Nathan Peterman against San Diego may cost them a playoff spot. Peterman through five picks and Los Angeles won. It's possible that these two teams could end up with the same record and the Bolts would have the tie-breaker. They got spanked by the Pats last Sunday, scoring a mere field goal. They have winnable games against the Colts and Dolphins (home and home with Miami) but they also travel to New England for a rematch. Very likely the Bills finish around 500. They'll go into the off-season with one big question: whether to move on from Taylor.

17. Tennessee Titans 8-4 (19, 25): The Titans are atop the AFC South, but they have a -16 scoring differential. Football Outsiders makes Tennessee to be the 16th ranked offense and 21st ranked defense. There isn't much to like about the Titans and while their eight banked wins probably means they've punched their playoff ticket unless they go winless the rest of the way, Tennessee will be any team's favourite opponent in January.

18. Green Bay Packers 6-6 (27, 7): Brett Hundley has had his problems -- no game with 250 or more yards, two three-pick games, no passing touchdowns in four of his seven starts -- but the Pack has refused to drop out of the playoff hunt while Aaron Rodgers looks on from the sidelines. He might return in week 15 and that, presumably, changes everything. The O-line has had its share of injuries. The defense doesn't help matters; since week one, the only team Green Bay has kept to under 20 points is the Bears (twice). Few people thought Green Bay would still be contender and that Rodgers' return would be relevant. It's a bit of a longshot, but fans in Titletown have every reason to hope.

19. Cincinnati Bengals 5-7 (20, 15): They are 5-5 after starting 0-2, and their offense has improved after not scoring a touchdown in that pair of losses. But being ranked 18th or 19th in all three facets of the game according to Football Outsiders means Cincy is a slightly below average team that can win games when A.C. Green gets the ball. But the rest of their offense (despite Jon Gruden's fawning over RB Giovani Bernard on Monday night) is middling at best and their defense doesn't scare anyone.

20. Detroit Lions 6-6 (16, 8): I was a bit surprised to see that the Lions score 26.2 ppg, good for fifth overall, because they don't seem that good and other offensive metrics don't suggest they are that good. Indeed, by most measures they are slightly better than average of offense and slightly worse than average on defense. Now Matt Stafford is hurt, so don't expect the offense to do much. Early in the season, the Leo's defense was producing takeaways but they haven't sustained that pace. The Lions had a three-game winning streak before losing their last two, but those victories came over the Bears, Browns, and Aaron Rodgers-less Packers. The teams ahead of them in the playoff picture are all much better than Detroit, so even the Lions slightly favourable schedule probably won't help them.

21. New York Jets 5-7 (22, 27): I said last time that ranking the Gang Green 22nd seemed overly generous. Maybe not. For a team that pundits seriously predicted would go 0-16 because of the lack of NFL-calibre talent, the Gang Green have a pair of rookie safeties that look very good and solid quarterback play from veteran Josh McCown, who has career best marks in passing yards, touchdowns, and passer rating. According to Football Outsiders, the Jets are ranked 22nd or 21st in all three facets of the game and they've lost two close games on questionable calls. The Jets have seldom been an easy opponent this year.

22. Oakland Raiders 6-6 (26, 18): The pass rush has improved in the second half but the secondary is a mess. The Raiders got their first pick in week 12. Marshawn Lynch had his first 100-yard game last week behind an O-line that has been inconsistent. There is some coaching instability, with the Raiders having new offensive and defensive coordinators in the past 12 months. Jack Del Rio seems to have lost some of the aggressiveness he coached with last year. QB Derek Carr looks human after being in the MVP conversation for much of 2016. Record-wise, the Raiders are in a three-way tie for the AFC West division lead, but there isn't much to get excited about for fans in Oakland.

23. Arizona Cardinals 5-7 (28, 23): It didn't help losing RB David Johnson and later QB Carson Palmer. Drew Stanton replaced Palmer, who has since been replaced by Blaine Gabbert, who has been serviceable. Solid D (6th overall according to Football Outsiders) can make the Cards a difficult team to beat, but its too beat up to win many games.

24. Houston Texans 4-8 (3, 3): Injuries to two of their top defenders (J.J. Watt and Whitney Mercilus) and a suspension to another (Brian Cushman) were bad enough. Rookie QB Deshaun Watson was playing at an MVP level before an ACL injury suffered during practice ended his season and all hope for the Texans. QB Tom Savage is a turnover machine with six picks and seven lost fumbles in seven games (only five started and completed). This season would have been very different were Watson healthy. If there is one glimmer of good news, WR DeAndre Hopkins is second in receiving yards (1084). They are an easy team to beat this year, but when their injured players come back next year, Houston might be the favourites to win the AFC South.

25. Denver Broncos 3-9 (18, 6): The offense and special teams are ranked last and second last respectively according to football outsiders, but its defense is ranked 10th. It was a top three defense in previous years, but losing coordinator Wade Phillips means the D is good rather than great. The Broncs have started three different QBs and none of them look like a long-term answer for the Broncs.

26. Chicago Bears 3-9 (24, 31): Rookie QB Mitch Trubisky is averaging 154.6 yards in his eight games and has only one game with more than 180 yards. Trubisky has just five TDs (and four picks) and a QBR of 23.0. Part of that is on coach John Fox who has the training wheels on his rookie. But Chicago has played their share of close games and are a tough out.

27. Tampa Bay Buccaneers 4-8 (25, 17): The Bucs are averaging just 16.3 ppg over their past six games. They've lost games by missing intermediate range field goals. According to Football Outsiders, they have the second worst defense. This is a bad team. Their best player, third-year QB Jamies Winston, is being investigated for allegedly groping an Uber driver.

28. Miami Dolphins 5-7 (23, 29): The Fins are scoring 17.4 ppg (26th overall) and are ranked 29th and 27th respectively for offensive and defensive DVOA according to Football Outsiders. This is a bad team.

29. San Francisco 49ers 2-10 (29, 30); Some of their units are coming along nicely, especially their pass rush. Acquiring Jimmy Garoppolo looked very good in his first start last week, giving the Niners hope that they have their quarterback of the future. With the development around the field, a potential franchise QB, presumably one of the first three picks in the 2018 draft, and tonnes of cap space, San Fran is set up quite nicely for the future.

30. New York Giants 2-10 (30, 20): The litany of problems is long: an ineffective O-line, losing to injury their top two wide receivers for the season in September (and losing their top four receivers in one game), an injury to their best offensive lineman in week eight (RT Justin Pugh), no running game, mediocre play from franchise QB Eli Manning, and coach Ben McAdoo "losing the locker room" early in the season. All that was before the last week's drama of coach McAdoo replacing Manning with imitation quarterback Geno Smith and letting Manning know via press release, and this week's drama of the Giants firing McAdoo and general manager Jerry Reese. Nothing has gone right for the G-Men in 2017 after being a popular playoff pick in the pre-season.

31. Indianapolis Colts 3-9 (31, 32): Two of their wins are over the 2-10 49ers and 0-12 Browns. QB Jacoby Bissett has looked good at times. The defense hasn't looked good at all. At least Indy gets Andrew Luck back at quarterback next year, but this organization has yet to put together a decent O-line to protect him or a competent D to help him out.

32. Cleveland Browns 0-12 (32, 28): Defensive end and first overall pick last year Myles Garrett has been very good at getting pressure on the QB. Their other two 2017 first round rookies haven't been the contributors the Browns hoped. They lost left tackle Joe Thomas, their best offensive lineman, in the first half of the season, which does the offense no favour. WR Josh Gordon was very good in his first game back last week after not playing since 2014 due to various suspensions; a player who should be a bit rusty shouldn't be the best player on the offensive side of the ball but he is. This bottom ranking, however, is due to their use of rookie QB DeShone Kizer and his start, not starting, start, not starting, removal during the game, back next time treatment. Coach Hue Jackson is supposed to be the quarterback whisperer but he looks like he has no clue how to handle a QB.

posted by Paul Tuns at 2:05 AM