Guilty Pleasures Part Sixty-One -- Eyes on the Zeros

Man, it's been a long time since we've done a Guilty Pleasures around here. Fearless Maria, have you been hiding?

No! Well, sort of, if you count having to do a million pounds of homework and being cooped up in your room as hiding, then yes.

A million pounds of homework?

Yes, Dad! I took it to a truck scale and weighed it!

Okay, well then it must be true. Anyway, we've begun another new decade, or at least reached a year that ends in 0. So does that give you any ideas about what we should do tonight?

Why yes, it does. Why don't we do top hit songs from these years: 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000, which was the year I was born! That was 10 years ago, people! I'm "double digits" now!

And the world is getting ready for you. Shall we begin?

Yes, sir!

So, let's look at 1960. It was the infancy of rock and roll and the top rock song on the chart (and #3 overall) that year was by two singing brothers from Kentucky, Don and Phil Everly.

Cathy's Clown

And then there was this one, #10 overall, one of the first big dance crazes. It's Chubby Checker, doing

The Twist

So how did you like those two, Maria?

Both are sort of "interesting." I just tried that Twist dance craze, but it seems kinda boring to me. But I do get the Chubby Checker thing -- he has a chubby face and was wearing an ugly checked suit. So he looked the part. Did you notice that the girls in the audience weren't sure if they were supposed to have fun or not? You'd think they would have figured that one out, right?

I suppose, but I'm not certain that fun was allowed in 1960, Maria.

They were certainly having more fun than the Everly Brothers, though. They were just singing. Maybe Chubby is more of a clown than Cathy's Clown, huh?

I think so. So do you think things changed by 1970?

Let's find out.

Well, consider this effort from our friends to the North. It's the Guess Who, pride of Winnipeg, Manitoba, in full snarl with:

American Woman

And then, maybe a little less angry, there was this, from the always-cheerful Jackson 5:

ABC

Well those were pretty different! The Guess Who wanted to get the ladies out of there, but the Jackson 5 wanted to get the ladies in there! So, who was that singer for the Guess Who? I don't know, so I have to guess who!

Well, I know. His name is Burton Cummings.

It sounded like he should have been named Burton Goings! He looked like the world's angriest ice cream salesman! No chocolate for you!

But you like the Jackson 5, right?

Yes, but wasn't that weird for Michael to be singing about girls and love? Most of the boys my age are pretty gross and would rather talk about anything but girls!

Well, Michael had a little help I think.

Maybe he got some advice from Tito, huh? Or maybe he just wrote to Dear Abby!

As good a theory as I have, Maria. Shall we move on to 1980?

Sure. And look who's back! It's Michael Jackson again, but it looks he ditched Tito! And Dear Abby, maybe:

Rock With You

Dad, it looks somebody had a little accident with the glitter can! I'm not sure that sweater looks so good on him, either. But he sure got a lot more sparkly than he was 10 years before. Personally, I prefer the dress shirt and vest stuff -- I don't think he'd get to wear those glitter clothes to church!

That would have been interesting. But did you want to see another video from 1980?

Sure, Dad. What about this one?

Call Me

That Blondie sure was busy. I assume a lot of people would have called her. Dad, is Blondie in the phone book?

Don't think so, Maria.

Oh, that's right, everyone was calling this number back then.

I think people are still calling that number, Maria.

You mean for the plumbing guy?

Yeah, I suppose. Anyway, shall we leak on over to 1990?

Yes, Dad. Can you show me some girl singers?

No problem, Maria. There were a lot of them. Like this lady, Alannah Myles:

Black Velvet

And of course you had Madonna:

Vogue

Seems like both these ladies like to strike a pose to me! Was that a big thing back then? Did Mom strike a pose?

Mom's not exactly the type to strike a pose, Maria.

Maybe we can get her to do that some time!

Good luck with that one, Maria.

Anyway, both those ladies have some really fancy clothes. I guess Alannah Myles wanted some black velvet, or maybe she was tired of it? It was hard to tell. It's hard for me to believe that these songs came out 20 years ago. The music style hasn't changed that much since then. I guess those crooning teenage idols we see these days are a little different, but they'd like to be able to strike a pose like Madonna, I bet!

No doubt about that, Maria. So shall we go on to 2000?

Well, Dad, you have to pick this one!

Maria Maria

Yes, I guess I have to. I'll be honest -- I wasn't paying a lot of attention to the pop charts in 2000. I was kinda busy watching you. But since you were our child, we can turn to Destiny's Child and:

Say My Name

So let me see if I have this right. Carlos Santana said my name, but Destiny's Child want us to Say My Name? That's confusing! And does that mean that I'm the Destiny Child, Maria Maria?

That's a good theory, Maria. Let's go with that.

By the way, I think Destiny's Child must have been working for a paint store the way they keep changing colors quickly. I think that was a cool idea, but kinda weird. But you know what's really weird, Dad?

What's that, Maria?

That we're done. So let's have people pick their favorite in the comments section! Things really changed from 1960 to 2000, that's for sure!

And they keep changing, Maria. Yes they do.

The New Growth Industry Is. . .

. . .schadenfreude, of course. Mr. Air America, he dead.

It is with the greatest regret, on behalf of our Board, that we must announce that Air America Media is ceasing its live programming operations as of this afternoon, and that the Company will file soon under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code to carry out an orderly winding-down of the business.

So who killed Cock Robin? Here's what Air America believes:

The very difficult economic environment has had a significant impact on Air America's business. This past year has seen a "perfect storm" in the media industry generally. National and local advertising revenues have fallen drastically, causing many media companies nationwide to fold or seek bankruptcy protection. From large to small, recent bankruptcies like Citadel Broadcasting and closures like that of the industry's long-time trade publication Radio and Records have signaled that these are very difficult and rapidly changing times.

That's true as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far. The problem for Air America was never vast, impersonal forces. It was their continual failure to find an audience. Rush Limbaugh isn't facing a "perfect storm" these days. Nor is Fox News, which lately has been beating both CNN and MSNBC combined in the ratings.

The thing about markets is this: you have to satisfy a need and it's best if you can satisfy an unmet need. There's no lack of liberal voices on the public airwaves; there never has been in my lifetime. You get the same basic undifferentiated liberalism on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC. The public stations provide the same basic fodder, except with more classical music and pledge drives. Rush Limbaugh and Fox have been wildly successful because they have provided something that wasn't previously available. And Limbaugh and Fox will continue to grow because they understand their audience and nurture it.

I keep waiting for one of the major networks to change course and start competing on Fox's turf. There's money to be made. But they won't do it, even though the opportunity is obvious. It's an endless source of amusement. And fodder for blog posts, I guess. And if you want more dancing on the graves of our unfortunate portside pals, Mitch has you covered.

Say what you will

I really like free speech. And I like this decision:

The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

This does three things, all good in my view. It frees corporations to express their views directly and openly, which is a good thing. It also means that there's less reason to form Orwellian front organizations to make the arguments that corporations can now make themselves. In addition, I can evaluate which companies are in the game and what uniforms they are wearing.

The Country's In the Best of Hands

Okay, look at this:

Mr. Blair, in testimony before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, revealed a previously undisclosed disagreement among the Obama administration's top officials over the handling of the Nigerian who is accused of attempting to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253.

The intelligence chief said Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab should have been questioned by the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, or HIG, a special panel established by President Obama.

"We did not invoke the HIG in this case. We should have. Frankly, we were thinking more of overseas people. And, you know … that's what we will do now. And so we need to make those decisions more carefully," Mr. Blair told Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican and ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee.

Emphasis mine. Okay, that makes sense. Choose the right tool for the job and all. One little problem though, revealed immediately thereafter in the same article.

Mr. Blair later issued a statement saying his remarks had been misconstrued. "The FBI interrogated Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab when they took him into custody," he said. "They received important intelligence at that time, drawing on the FBI's expertise in interrogation that will be available in the HIG once it is fully operational."

Again, emphasis mine. I trust you can draw your own conclusions.

Rigoberta Menchu Was Unavailable for Comment

It's a Nobel laureate catfight!

But I have to say, I’m pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in.

That's Paul Krugman, Timesman and absurd Nobel laureate, dissing his fellow absurd Nobel laureate. Well of course he wouldn't fight, Krugster -- he won the Peace Prize, silly!

Your Tears Are Delicious

The old cliche holds that once an election is lost, the long knives come out. Behold as Mort Zuckerman pretty much sends a Chicago Cutlery warehouse sale to the president. You want red meat? Check this action out:

Obama’s ability to connect with voters is what launched him. But what has surprised me is how he has failed to connect with the voters since he’s been in office. He’s had so much overexposure. You have to be selective. He was doing five Sunday shows. How many press conferences? And now people stop listening to him. The fact is he had 49.5 million listeners to first speech on the economy. On Medicare, he had 24 million. He’s lost his audience. He has not rallied public opinion. He has plunged in the polls more than any other political figure since we’ve been using polls. He’s done everything wrong. Well, not everything, but the major things.

I don’t consider it a triumph. I consider it a disaster.

Read the whole thing -- it's an epic tantrum.

Martha and the Maguffins

It's over. Martha Coakley has conceded and Scott Brown has won the special election in Massachusetts. Every good amateur pundit needs to have an opinion or two on such things, of course. So here are mine.

• Scott Brown ran a hell of a good campaign. He's a talented politician and he ran rings around Martha Coakley. Word is that Mitt Romney played a major role in getting Brown ready for this contest. If that is the case, it will certainly change the calculus among Republicans about Romney generally. Winning an election in Massachusetts is still a pretty good trick and if Romney has the formula to win in a state as indigo as Massachusetts, other Republicans will want it.


• The question everyone will ask is this: is this election simply a local result, the product of a bad candidate and an inept campaign, or does it reflect on the Democrats nationally, especially the guy who sits in the Oval Office? Clearly, it's both.


• There's no question that Martha Coakley was a spectacularly bad candidate. She was arrogant and aloof and she never seemed to understand that retail politics are part of the game. She campaigned like a divine right monarch and couldn't believe that the peasants weren't cooperating. By the time she realized she was in trouble, it was likely too late. Some portside commenters dismissed it when conservatives brought up the Curt Schilling comment, but people don't vote for politicians who seemingly don't understand their everyday concerns. That's a problem for a lot of Democrats these days. Tip O'Neill wouldn't have made that mistake. Nor would have Ted Kennedy.


• Coakley's loss does hurt Obama, but he can recover if he figures out why it happened. I've long believed that the Democrats completely misread their mandate in 2008. The public was indeed tired of the Republican Party in 2008, but it was never clear that a majority of people were signing up for a sharp, leftward turn in our politics. Obama was a fresh, appealing face. But his appealing face was obscuring the faces of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of the 60s era Democrats who have been waiting for 40 years to finish the job that LBJ started. Once the gleaming new President was inaugurated, these refugees from Madame Tussaud's thought they had the run of the place. They didn't, though. Millions of people pulled the lever for Barack Obama in 2008. Harry and Nancy? Not so much.


• Obama now faces a choice. He gets something that his predecessor Bill Clinton did not have until after the midterm elections -- a clear warning concerning what's ahead. Clinton, ever protean, was able to change his presentation enough to commandeer the center. He also co-opted the best ideas the Republicans had on offer in 1994-1995 and by doing so took them away from Bob Dole, his opponent for reelection in 1996. It wasn't hard for Bill Clinton to do this, because the only thing that Bill Clinton really believes in is, well, Bill Clinton.


• I think Obama is more ideological. But if Obama can wrap his mind around self-preservation, he could easily pull the same feat that Clinton did in 1996. I can see no reason why he should have any loyalty to Pelosi, Reid or much of anyone else on Capitol Hill right now. And since he's not likely to cheat on his wife, Obama could have a better second term if he figures it out. Will he? Or will he double down on jamming through his current agenda?


• Is Obamacare dead? This much is certain -- it's in a hell of a lot of trouble. The problem with career politicians is that they are careerists first. I'm sure you can envision quite a lot of the so-called Blue Dogs seeing this result and, ahem, recalibrating their position. Do you think Blanche Lincoln would be willing to march into the bayonet? How about Evan Bayh? There are a lot of others who may have thought their seats were safe. I doubt they feel this way now.


• Obama and his White House allies would see scrapping the current measure and starting over as a defeat. They shouldn't. It's actually an opportunity. For all the talk of bipartisanship, there was never a real sustained impetus in Congress to let Republicans participate in the crafting of the various bills that have been floating around the past year. The search was for a fig leaf -- a Joseph Cao or one of the Maine Sisters in the Senate, to provide a veneer of bipartisanship. The Democrats never seriously entertained taking a Republican bill as a basis for what they might be able to do, even though they could have done so. The one outright Big Lie the Democrats told, and they told it repeatedly, was that the Republicans didn't have any ideas on offer. If Obama is smart, he'll pick up the phone tomorrow morning and call Paul Ryan.


• Obama has scheduled his State of the Union speech for next week. It's now probably the most crucial speech of his presidency. He will need to choose his words wisely.


• As for Pelosi and Reid? Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but it sucks to be you. I'd really like to be sympathetic, but you know what? I'm not.

Radio Free Dilettante — Special Election Edition

Guaranteed to have Mass. appeal:

Last Five:
Slide, Slave
Joy, Apollo 100
When a Woman Loves a Man, Ella Fitzgerald
If You Want Blood (You've Got It), AC/DC
Eclipse, Pink Floyd

Next Five:
Swamp Music, Lynyrd Skynyrd
It Ain't Over 'Til It's Over, Lenny Kravitz
Houses of the Holy, Led Zeppelin
Oddfellows Local 151, R.E.M.
What Good Am I Without You, Marvin Gaye/Kim Weston

Question for the audience

Does anyone know the French word for chutzpah?

The French minister in charge of humanitarian relief called on the UN to "clarify" the American role amid claims the military build up was hampering aid efforts.

Alain Joyandet admitted he had been involved in a scuffle with a US commander in the airport's control tower over the flight plan for a French evacuation flight.

You can pretty much look it up -- if there's a place in the Third World that's largely ungovernable, with rampant corruption and a history filled with petty dictators and extreme cruelty, there's an excellent chance that the official language of the country is French. And Haiti is Exhibit A.

Brad spots a contender for. . .

. . . the dumbest comment ever made by a politician. Just click on the link -- you have to see this one to believe it. Definitely merits the double facepalm.

Normative

Norm Coleman will not run for governor. Mitch Berg has the story:

I love Minnesota and I love public service, but this is not the right time for me and my family to conduct a campaign for Governor.

Timing is everything. The timing on this race is both a bit too soon and a bit too late. It is too soon after my last race and too late to do a proper job of seeking the support of delegates who will decide in which direction our party should go. The commitments I have to my family and the work I am currently engaged in do not allow me to now go forward.

Coleman is right. While he would be streets ahead of any of the DFL candidates, it would have been a tough sell to get him elected, even in what promises to be a much more favorable environment for Republicans. I would also suspect he'll consider waiting until 2012 for a chance to run against Amy Klobuchar, whose popularity in this state is a mile wide and an inch deep.

Meanwhile, what this really means is that the Feb. 2 caucuses are going to be pretty huge. At this point the conventional wisdom is that one of three legislators will emerge as the GOP standard-bearer: either Tom Emmer, Marty Seifert or David Hann. Based on what I know today, my preference is Emmer, who is a strong conservative and a pretty sharp guy. But I could be persuaded. As could you, most likely. The place to find out is at your caucus. We'll talk much more about this in the coming days. As Mitch says:

It’s a whole new race. And a big opportunity for conservatives – all of you, the Paulbots and Tea Partiers and Tax Protesters and pro-lifers and the whole works – to make a huge difference.

It all starts February 2. Be there.

The Purple Quandary

Question: if you are not a Vikings fan, should you support the Vikings now?

I know that Packer Nation is divided on the issue, especially given the role of Lord FavreMort in this season. I guess I take my cue from my Dad, a lifelong Packers fan who always cheered for the Vikings in Super Bowls. Then again, he always cheered for the Cowboys in Super Bowls, too.

Dad's theory was to support your fellow rivals, either by division or by conference, as a sign of respect for the rivalry. Thus, he always supported the NFC team in the Super Bowl and whatever Big Ten team showed up in the Rose Bowl. I'd wager he even cheered for the Bears in 1985. And man, that's gotta hurt.

This sort of thing mattered more when I was growing up in the 1970s. All my friends had what we called our "second team," which was the team we'd support once the Packers were eliminated from contention, which was usually about October 10 in those days. There were a lot of kids who cheered for the Dolphins, or the Cowboys, or the Raiders. My second team was always the Redskins in those days, mostly because my best friend was an avid Redskins fan. I also supported the Steelers because of Rocky Bleier, who is still the most famous graduate of my high school. It was a smart way to enjoy the NFL, especially when you would otherwise have to cheer for Eric Torkelson or Estus Hood, which was a pretty futile undertaking.

So congratulations, Vikings. And have fun, Vikings fans. At least in this corner, we wish you well.

Facepalm

If you want to represent Massachusetts, there are certain things you need to know. One of the biggest things: the Red Sox are a very, very big deal. And if you want to have any credibility with Red Sox fans, it's helpful to have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the team's history.

In recent Red Sox history, few players have a larger role than pitcher Curt Schilling. He became most famous for the "bloody sock" game, when he pitched through injury against the hated Yankees to win Game 6 of the American League Championship Series in 2004. He won that game and the Red Sox went on to win their first World Series since 1918. It's the stuff of legend throughout New England.

As it happens, the now-retired Schilling is an outspoken fellow and has thrown his support to Scott Brown, the Republican who is challenging Martha Coakley in the special election to fill the vacant Senate seat in Massachusetts. As Ben Smith notes in Politico, the topic of Schilling came up in a radio interview with Coakley. Here's the (ahem) play-by-play:

In the intensifying Democratic precriminations game over who to blame if Coakley loses, here's one for the blame Coakley camp: On another talk radio show, "Nightside With Dan Rea," Coakley jabs Rudy Giuliani as a Yankee fan, then goes on to describe Brown supporter Curt Schilling, the great former Red Sox pitcher, as a Yankee fan as well.

The host sounds incredulous -- "Curt Schilling? The Red Sox great pitcher of the bloody sock?" -- and Coakley initially sounds unfamiliar with him. She eventually reverses herself, but it's an odd moment in a state that was transfixed by Schilling's performance in the 2004 World Series, where he helped the Red Sox win for the first time since 1918.

Smith has audio at the link so you can hear it for yourself. No matter what you think of the Red Sox generally or of Curt Schilling in particular, this is cosmically dumb stuff. You have to wonder: the state of Massachusetts is full of liberals and has a huge roster of liberal politicians. How did someone as oblivious as Martha Coakley end up being the standard-bearer of the party?

Benster and D Pick Your Games -- Divisional Round

It's time to bring out the BIG DAWGS. We are no longer messing around, children. Can you feel the HYYYYYYYYPPPPPPPE!

I'm not sure what I'm feeling. My ears are ringing after that blast of hype. Maybe a smidge of fear?

There's no time for fear, Decrepit! Underdog is Here! That old school stuff ought to reassure you. Or do you need to head out for the Early Bird Special?

Too late for that, Seabiscuit.

Of course. It's time to get down to bidness. Roll those picks!

Arizona House of Cards (+7) vs New Orleans Unstoppable Offensive Juggernaut (Except for Recently). Down in Saints country, they have a little cheer that I will recount for you. Who Dat? Who dey think they can beat the Saints? Arizona somehow managed to survive a comeback from Aaron Rodgers and steal a win in the desert last week. New Orleans is on a 3-game losing streak, but the game is in New Orleans, which is one of the most intimidating places to play in the National Football League. Make sure you click that link -- it will put you in the mood for the epic football action that will be taking place in the Superdome. Anyway, both teams can score at any moment, so the game will be decided on the turnover battle. And look for Karlos Dansby to deliver the blow. Cardinals 84, Hurricane Brees 77.

Benster? Okay, let's take a deep breath here. These teams will score. I agree. Heck, the Cardinals put up 51 points last weekend. But I don't see them scoring 84. In fact, I don't see them winning this game. New Orleans is built for this moment and they will take it. I don't doubt that they will struggle, and it's awfully hard to pick against Kurt Warner based on what we saw last week. But I'm going to anyway. Drew Brees is ready and I think they'll have enough energy to handle the Cardinals. Saints 41, Cardinals 34.

Charm City Birds (+6 1/2) vs. Indianapolis Mannings. It's very obvious to see that both teams are extremely young at the skill positions. Sure, Peyton Manning is in his 30s now and probably heading toward a midlife crisis, which I'm sure he'll have turned into a series of credit card commercials, but he's a Superfreak. He's Superfreaky. Yow. Anyway, the Ravens last week ran all over the Patriots like it was going out of style. Last year the Ravens went into Nashville and beat the Titans, who were the #1 seed in 2008. I think the Ravens have discovered a key to beating high-powered offensive teams, by keeping the opposing offense off the field. And they will do it again this week. Charm City Birds 30, Mannings 19.

Bold pick, Grasshopper! And again I can see your logic. The Colts won a lot of games this season in highly fortunate ways. Peyton Manning was unbelievably good throwing to various guys named after cities in Texas and some French dude who I think was Klondike Kat's enemy. It was really amazing when you think about it. But the key to this game is going to be defense. Can the Colts play enough of it to stop Baltimore's Ray Rice? I don't think so. I'm going to agree with the young fella. Baltimore 27, Indianapolis 24.

Dallas How 'Bout Them Cowboahs (-3) vs. Minnesota Skol Vikings. Guess who's back in the playoffs? Brett Lorenzo Fav-ray, or as we disaffected Packer fans call him, Benedict Brent. Minnesota comes in playing hot, but Dallas was even hotter. Tony Romo might have won last week, but the jury is still out on him and Roy "Wait a minute, am I supposed to catch that?" Williams. We haven't had any Jessica Simpson sightings here in the Twin Cities this week, so I don't think young Tony will be distracted by the ladies. Antoine Winfield will have to deal with "I Can See for" Miles Austin. I know the Dome will be rocking because I've been there for a Twins playoff game and the joint is louder than loud. You can here the noise for miles and miles. Oh yeah. Skol Vikings 30, Cowboahs 7.

As the young fella points out, Tony Romo won't let Jessica Simpson distract him this weekend. Which is a good thing, because I have the sense that Jared Allen is going to have a great game and Romo had better be ready. As a Packer fan in Minnesota, it's always amusing to watch how Vikings fans turn what should be a happy event into a festival of worrying and angst. Half of the fans I've talked to are convinced that the Ghost of Drew Pearson or something will smite their beloved purple-clad heroes and all the fun they've had this season will turn to ashes. Not. Going. To. Happen. Favre may not be good enough to run the table against future foes, but he's good enough to beat Tony Romo. Look for the Vikings to score early, set the tempo and keep Dallas from doing what they do best. Vikings 31, Cowboys 26.

New York J-E-T-S JETS JETS JETS (+7) vs. San Diego Bolts. So, it's the little engine that could going up against the hottest team in the league. On the road, too. Last week the Bengals didn't even show up again and the Jets won rather easily. However, Phillip Rivers is proving to be a smart pickup for my fantasy league team and a Top 5 quarterback. I do not see Vincent Jackson getting shut down by Darrelle Revis the way that Ochenta y Cinco did. Look for the Green and White to be black and blue by the end of this one. Usain Bolts 63, Gang Green 2.

This seems like the easiest game of the weekend to pick. The Jets have played well down the stretch, but they aren't even close to the Chargers, talent-wise. Rivers has quietly put together a fantastic season and he has a wide array of weapons to choose from. Vincent Jackson is only one of them. He also happens to have Ladanian Tomlinson, one of the 5 best running backs in the history of the game, on his side, too. Tomlinson is looking for his Walter Paytonesque Super Bowl moment this year. And I suspect he'll have a chance to get it. And Norv Turner won't forget to give him the ball with a chance to score like Ditka did with Payton. And the Jets are merely a speed bump. Chargers 34, Jets 14.

I probably picked two of the more bold picks that I've ever made. But remember this -- the Benster has mad skills. Don't look back. Something might be gaining on you. Ben out!

Only Fair

We bashed Pat Robertson yesterday for his idiotic comments about Haiti, with good cause. Only fair that I call this deep thinking from Danny Glover to your attention:

Says Glover: “When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I’m sayin’?”

Actually Mr. Glover, I don’t know what you’re sayin’. Besides, everyone knows that the Haitian earthquake is Chimpy McHitlerburton's fault. Guess you missed the memo.

Sweet Martha Cookies

The special election to fill the open Senate seat in Massachusetts has had some pretty great theater. I have no idea if the Republican candidate, Scott Brown, can actually pull off the election, but I do know this: if Brown were to design the ideal candidate to run against, he couldn't have come up with a better foil than Martha Coakley, the standard bearer for the Democrats. She's had a hell of a few weeks. She has managed to:

• Insult Red Sox fans and Bruins fans with one comment
• Have one of her operatives knock down a reporter for the Weekly Standard, then attempt to deny that it happened, despite photographic evidence that Coakley saw it happen
• Explain that Catholics who find certain aspects of the medical profession morally troubling should probably work elsewhere

They love their Democrats up in Massachusetts. Do they love them enough to elect Martha Coakley? Guess we're gonna find out.

Fearless Maria Goes Double Digits

I don't know how it happened, but sure enough here we are. Fearless Maria turns 10 tomorrow.

I wrote this post about Maria two years ago and it still sounds right. Especially the way I described Maria at that time:

Maria is sweet, silly, funny and amazingly smart. She has moments of amazing insight and some days she has a tongue like a lash.

As you've seen over the past two years, all of that is true. Maria is truly fearless, even though she'd be the first to admit that some things in this world are plenty frightening. The thing is this: she has already learned that you must face your fears if you are going to move forward in this world. We all know people who never master that particular skill.

Since that day 2 years ago, Maria has continued to learn, grow and thrive. She has many great moments ahead and it's going to be a thrill to watch. Actually, watching isn't the right word. Parenting is hardly a spectator sport. Jill and I will support her as she makes her way in the world. Maria will make many decisions in the next 10 years of her life. And as those of you who follow this feature will agree, we have every reason to believe that she'll do a very good job of charting her path.

And one other thing: she promises that another edition of Guilty Pleasures is in the works.

Radio Free Dilettante — 011410

Last Five:
Help Me Rhonda, Beach Boys
Havana Affair, Ramones
Wooden Ships, Jefferson Airplane
Lovely Day, Busta Rhymes/Luther Vandross
Wake Up Little Susie, Everly Brothers

Next Five:
Subterranean Homesick Blues, Bob Dylan
Personal Jesus, Depeche Mode
I Cheat the Hangman, Doobie Brothers
I Get the Blues When It Rains, Les Paul Trio/Peggy Lee
Bring On the Night, Police

Big Mac and Roids — III

So who were the players on the juice? The most definitive list to date has been around since the end of 2007, from the Mitchell Report that Major League Baseball itself commissioned. ESPN provided a handy compilation that you can read here. It's a wide-ranging list, but likely represents only a portion of the players who used steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs.

The annotation provided in the ESPN report is helpful, because it helps us understand the varying motivations of the gentlemen in question. For marginal players, the goal was to stay in the Show. A good example is Mark Carreon, a journeyman player who had a few good years in the majors but a guy I'd largely forgotten:

[Kirk] Radomski said that he provided Carreon with Dianabol pills toward the end of his tenure with the Giants (Carreon was with San Francisco from 1994 through the middle of the 1996 season). He believes that Carreon paid by check. According to Radomski, Carreon told him that the "ball was jumping off his bat" and that he could hit farther because of the anabolic steroids he used.

The statistics bear it out. Carreon, who had never hit more than 10 runs in a season, hit 17 in 1995. That's an improvement but it really wasn't enough, given the ferocious performance metrics that major league players must meet. As a first baseman, 17 homers is on the low end of average for what a team would like to see from the position. The steroids were enough to keep Carreon in the Show for a short time but apparently weren't enough to sustain longer-term success, since his major league career ended one year later, at the age of 32.

Carreon was a marginal player and needed an edge. It's perfectly understandable why he pursued the ministrations of Kirk Radomski, who actively supplied a variety of major leaguers and later provided key testimony in the Mitchell investigation. I'm not even certain it's worth attempting to muster much high dudgeon over a guy like Carreon, who had his moment and now is just another face in the crowd.

The larger issue remains -- how do we deal with more important figures like Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, Rafael Palmeiro, Gary Sheffield and Barry Bonds? Under ordinary circumstances, all would be legitimate candidates for the Hall of Fame. In the case of Bonds and Clemens, we are talking about players who are among the greatest to ever wear a major league uniform. I have an idea and I'll share that next.

Explanations You Didn't Need

Go away, your idle prattle has grown tiresome:

• Pat Robertson explains why the Haitians apparently deserved it. No, Pat, they don't (H/T: Gino). One other thing, Pat -- Christians tend to use the New Testament, too.
• Chuck Schumer explains why you should support Martha Coakley. Apparently using gratuitous slurs is now mainstream. Good to know -- we've got a bunch for you and your colleagues, Sen. Schumer.
• Newt Gingrich explains that he's a top-tier candidate for president, appropos of nothing. Memo to Newt -- your sell-by date passed about 12 years ago.

Awful

The earthquake that struck Haiti yesterday has turned out to be catastrophic and may well end up rivaling the tsunamis of 2004 in terms of loss of life. Life in Haiti has been pretty terrible for an eternity now and this disaster requires a strong response.

I would recommend that you visit The Anchoress, who has compiled an excellent list of agencies that are in position to help.

Big Mac and Roids - II

Yeah, I was in the show. I was in the show for 21 days once - the 21 greatest days of my life. You know, you never handle your luggage in the show, somebody else carries your bags. It was great. You hit white balls for batting practice, the ballparks are like cathedrals, the hotels all have room service, and the women all have long legs and brains.

That quote is fiction -- it comes from the most perceptive baseball movie I've seen, Bull Durham. The character who speaks the words is Crash Davis, as played by Kevin Costner. Davis is a very good ballplayer, but he's a career minor leaguer. The "show" is the major leagues.

In the merciless world of baseball, if you are a career minor leaguer you are a failure. You have failed even though you were likely the best player on every team you've played on, whether in Little League, Babe Ruth, American Legion, high school or college. You are likely capable of hitting a baseball 400 feet or more, or throwing a fastball that travels 85 miles an hour. Chances are you are an outstanding fielder. You are, by any reasonable standard, an elite athlete. In most cases, your work ethic is outstanding. And yet you are not good enough.

If you could find a way to get better, to gain the extra edge that takes you from the elite failure to the exalted success, would you pursue it? If the answer came in a syringe or a topical cream, would you let it go and accept your fate? Or would you pursue better living through chemistry?

I never had to answer that question. Have you?

Already Gone

I work in the public sector. Around a year ago, management announced a hiring freeze. At that point, we already had several unfilled positions. The situation has continued to go downhill. If we were fully staffed at my position, we would have around 23 FTE's. Currently, we have about 8.0 FTE's that are unfilled. As each new person leaves our location and our supervisors send a request to HR to post the position, the supervisors are informed that HR is "aware" of the situation at our location. However, we are still have not been given the green light to post any positions.

A couple of years ago, when I first started, we had a minimum number of people that we needed to open the doors. Now if we are short of people, we can't call another location to borrow a person or call a part time person to come in and work a few extra hours. We simply open the doors to the public no matter how many people are working.

As a result, it looks like a bomb has gone off in the back workroom. Customers are not happy that items are taking weeks instead of days to get items put out on the shelves. We now rely on volunteers who come in six days a week to help us do one of our most basic jobs.

I worked on Sunday and Monday. Both days I ate lunch at 12:30. Only one other person was eating lunch in our breakroom.

I used to think that the line from the Eagles song Already Gone ("And then you'll have to eat your lunch all by yourself") was funny.

Now I'm concerned that I will be eating lunch at work all by myself at the end of 2010.

Big Mac and Roids - I

So he's finally admitted what has been long suspected: Mark McGwire, the hulking slugger who initially broke Roger Maris's single-season home run record in 1998, was using steroids. So how to react to the news?

• As a practical matter, it's perfectly understandable why a ballplayer would have used steroids or other performance enhancing drugs. The benefits were obvious and the downside wasn't as obvious, especially at the time. There are always Faustian bargains available and, human nature being what it is, always takers.


• If you watch old video of baseball games played in the 1970s and 1980s, the difference in body types is striking. I grew up a fan of the Milwaukee Brewers and they had hulking sluggers galore in that era, except that they weren't especially hulking. Other than Gorman Thomas, the rest of the key guys on that team weren't especially big. One of the best hitters was a skinny outfielder named Ben Oglivie, who probably weighed about 165-170. These days the scrawniest utility infielders are larger than that.


• One of the arguments that McGwire apparently has made is that he regrets playing in the "Steroid Era." It's also the lamest argument he makes. While we don't have a lot of control over the world we live in, we all have free will. McGwire saw the money and the fame that was available and decided that he wanted it. There were plenty of other players who saw the same thing and resisted it.

More anon.

I'm Just Wild About Harry

That Harry Reid is more fun than a screen door on a submarine. By now you've likely heard some of the deep thoughts of the Senate Majority Leader in re: the President of the United States that are included in an upcoming book on the 2008 elections. Marc Ambinder retailed them on the Atlantic Monthly website yesterday:

He was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one," as he said privately. Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama's race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination.

Reid apologized profusely, of course. And Barack Obama, no fool he, was quite magnanimous in accepting his apology:

"Harry Reid called me today and apologized for an unfortunate comment reported today. I accepted Harry's apology without question because I've known him for years, I've seen the passionate leadership he's shown on issues of social justice and I know what's in his heart. As far as I am concerned, the book is closed."

So I suppose we should close the book on this one, right? While I suppose it's churlish to bring up a few other examples, sometimes churlishness is its own reward, right? So let's remember that the Internet is forever. Here's Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, discussing Trent Lott's controversial comments made at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, back in 2002:

Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D-13th), who hosted WVON's Cliff Kelley Show, challenged the Republican Party to repudiate Lott's remarks and to call for his resignation as senate leader.

"It seems to be that we can forgive a 100-year-old senator for some of the indiscretion of his youth, but, what is more difficult to forgive is the current president of the U.S. Senate (Lott) suggesting we had been better off if we had followed a segregationist path in this country after all of the battles and fights for civil rights and all the work that we still have to do," said Obama.

He said: "The Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party."

But it would be churlish to point out that double-standard. After all, we know what's in Harry Reid's heart -- the President has vouched for him -- and he's always been quite fair to other African American public figures. Oh, wait:

MR. RUSSERT: Why couldn't you accept Clarence Thomas?

SEN. REID: I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written. I don't--I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice.

Reid said that in 2005 on Meet the Press. When asked to elaborate on his remarks later on, his response was risible, as James Taranto pointed out at the time. I've italicized Reid's comments for clarity, and Justice Thomas's comments as well:

An alert reader points out that on the Dec. 26 episode of "Inside Politics," a little-watched CNN show, Reid actually did name such an opinion, at the request of host Ed Henry (we've corrected several obvious transcription errors here):

Henry: When you were asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" whether or not you could support Justice Thomas to be chief justice you said quote, "I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written." Could you name one of those opinions that you think is poorly written?

Reid: Oh sure, that's easy to do. You take the Hillside Dairy case. In that case you had a dissent written by Scalia and a dissent written by Thomas. There--it's like looking at an eighth-grade dissertation compared to somebody who just graduated from Harvard. Scalia's is well reasoned. He doesn't want to turn stare decisis precedent on its head. That's what Thomas wants to do. So yes, I think he has written a very poor opinion there and he's written other opinions that are not very good.

It's interesting to learn that in Nevada eighth-graders write dissertations; we guess that explains how Harry Reid got to be as erudite as he is. He must immerse himself deeply in legal scholarship to be familiar with a case like Hillside Dairy v. Lyons, which doesn't exactly rank up there with Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade among famous Supreme court rulings.

To be honest, we'd never even heard of Hillside Dairy until we read the CNN transcript, so we went and looked it up. It turns out to be a 2003 case about California milk regulation. Here is Thomas's opinion in full:

I join Parts I and III of the Court's opinion and respectfully dissent from Part II, which holds that §144 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 7 U.S.C. §7254, "does not clearly express an intent to insulate California's pricing and pooling laws from a Commerce Clause challenge." Ante, at 6-7. Although I agree that the Court of Appeals erred in its statutory analysis, I nevertheless would affirm its judgment on this claim because "[t]he negative Commerce Clause has no basis in the text of the Constitution, makes little sense, and has proved virtually unworkable in application," Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 520 U.S. 564, 610 (1997) (Thomas, J., dissenting), and, consequently, cannot serve as a basis for striking down a state statute.

Is that written at an eighth-grade level? We report, you decide.

Taranto asks a good question. As it happens, I have a son who is an 8th grader, the ever-erudite Benster. While he usually devotes most of his writing efforts to picking football games, I asked him if any 8th grader he knows would write a paragraph of this sort. Benster's response:

"Most 8th graders I know don't care much about agriculture, and the last time I checked no 8th grader has ever been on the High Court."

When in doubt, go to the source.

So can we infer that Harry Reid is a racist? Who knows? I don't know what's in his heart and frankly wouldn't want to venture any closer to analyze the matter. I suspect that Reid finds it pretty easy to criticize African-Americans, especially those who don't toe his particular line. He's hardly unusual that way. P. J. O'Rourke to Garrison Keillor, hardly ideological soulmates, have both argued that many liberals treat the people they love like hell.

A better question is this: should Harry Reid be held to the same standard as Trent Lott? And will he be held to the same standard? My take: Reid might be held to the same standard, but it's not necessarily the best thing for conservatives. Let's not kid ourselves -- having Harry Reid as the majority leader in the Senate is a gift that keeps on giving to those of us on the other side of the aisle. He's much more useful to Republicans as one of the key faces of the Democratic Party than he would be if he were relegated to the backbench with Lott. Keep fighting the good fight, Harry -- your failure is our success!

Benster and D Pick Your Playoff Games -- Wild Card Round

We're in the playoffs already? Playoffs? Playoffs! Can you feel the HYYYYYYYYPPPPPPE!

I guess I'm feeling the hype more than Jim Mora was.

Maybe that's what you would look like if you were an NFL coach, Decrepit! Of course, you're pretty much stuck coaching in-house youth sports.

In the words of this guy, it's what I do, and I do it well.

No, actually your picks are bankrupt, old dude! But enough of that, let's get down to bidness!

New York J-E-T-S JETS JETS JETS! (+2 1/2) vs. Cincinnati Ochocincos. When you're a Jet you're a Jet all the way. I know this song because my strange old father made me watch this strange old movie once. It won't help us pick the game very much, but it seems likes a good idea and an example of the services we provide to at-risk youth. Anyway, back to the game, if I can stop laughing at my own jokes long enough to make a pick. There will be a very good matchup to watch as Darrelle Revis matches up with Chad Ochenta y Cinco. He may not know how to pronounce his name, but I do. Everybody thinks the Bengals are just that good, but I'm calling the upset. Gang Green 30, Linguistically Challenged 19.

I can see why you think this will happen, Grasshopper. The Jets pretty much kicked the stuffing out of the Bengals last week in New Jersey, but this game is in Cincinnati. I suspect the Bengals will play much better this time. But I also think that much better won't be good enough. I like the Jets, too. Jets 16, Bengals 13.

Philadelphia Cheesesteaks (+4) vs. Dallas How 'Bout Them Cowboahs? There is going to be some blood tomorrow night. Last week Dallas put the donut on Andy Reid's boys, 24-0. The theory says that the team at home during the playoffs is probably going to win, but a couple of factors fall in favor of the Eagles. First of all, Dallas constantly chokes in the playoffs, especially since Tony Romo arrived. There's been the holder incident, the Jessica Simpson incident and other unfortunate events. There is also the revenge factor. DUH DUH DUH DUHHHHH. Feel the revenge, Tony Romo? Hey Roy Williams -- you don't have enough talent to win on talent alone! Look for the Cheesesteaks to give the Cowboys more than they can eat. Philly 50, Dallas 42.

So let me see if I understand what you're saying, Seabiscuit. The same team that couldn't score last week will put up 50 points this week? That's bold. Actually, I think this could be a shootout. The Cowboy defense has been very good lately but they can be had, especially if the Eagles hit a shot early on. And Benster has a good point -- Romo hasn't proven anything in the playoffs, while Eagle quarterback Donovan McNabb is quite battle-tested. And that's why I once again have to agree with the young fella. Eagles 24, Cowboys 20.

Baltimore Edgar Allan Poes (+3 1/2) vs. New England Belicheks. On a fashion note, Bill Belichek wears ugly sweatshirts with the sleeves cut off, which is kinda creepy. New England will be shorthanded without Wes Welker, but Bill Belichek has proven that he not only makes bad fashion choices, but he is intelligent. Baltimore does not really have a dynamic offense but they are able to play ball control. And Baltimore might be on to something -- it's tough for Tom Brady to complete passes when he's planted on the sideline. We'll see if the game will slow down or if the Patriots will be able to play fast break. Charm City Birds 31, Belicheks 28.

I like your theory on this one too, whippersnapper. I think the Patriots are getting old in a hurry, actually, and they are ripe to be knocked off. It won't be this week, though. Patriots 27, Ravens 17.

Glorious Green Bay Packers (+1) vs. Arizona House of Cards. All right -- I want a word with you Aaron Rodgers doubters. Aaron Rodgers is in the Pro Bowl. He's led the Packers on a 7-1 hot streak ever since that bad incident with the frightening Creamsicles. On paper, this game looks very scary for Green Bay without Al Harris. Charles Woodson will have to cover Holy Angels alum Larry Fitzgerald, leaving Tramon Williams to deal with Anquan Boldin and potentially Jarrett "Toast" Bush to deal with Steve Breaston. However, Boldin did not practice this week and odds are that he'll either go and be very limited or he'll be watching the game from the sidelines. Also, Arizona's best cornerback, Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie, is also hobbling around. That means that the Cardinals will have to put their number 2 cornerback on Greg Jennings and backups on Donald Driver and Jermichael Finley. That's just asking for trouble. The key to stopping Arizona is to disrupt Kurt Warner's rhythm. Maybe a little dose of Clay Matthews will do the trick. Packers 63, House of Cards 10.

Excellent analysis, but I don't see that score happening, young fella. The thing to me that's been most interesting about the run-up to this game is how much yapping the Cardinal players have been doing. It's almost as if they're using bravado to try to convince themselves that they can handle the Packers. The Cardinals are very strange, of course -- they can be almost unstoppable one week and terrible the next. Last week, they were terrible. Does that mean this week they'll be unstoppable? Probably not. Look for a wild, entertaining game, but if my theory holds true, the Packers will be coming to Minneapolis next week. Green Bay 38, Arizona 28.

Do not give Aaron Rodgers any more motivation. Vikings fans, remember well the words of Satchel Paige -- don't look back. Something might be gaining on you. Ben out!

Home Truth

We are at war. We are at war against Al Qaida, a far-reaching network of violence and hatred that attacked us on 9/11, that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, and that is plotting to strike us again. And we will do whatever it takes to defeat them.

So said President Obama yesterday. Go get 'em, Mr. President.

What We Have Here is a Failure to Communicate

Last month, we received notice about a change at the elementary school that one of our children attends. Soon, the school will not be sending home a paper copy of the weekly newsletter. Instead, families will have to go to the school district's website and sign up to receive an electronic copy of the newsletter, or families will need to go to the school's website to read a copy of the newsletter. The newsletter contains information such as a calendar of upcoming events, PTA projects, and an occasional column written by the principal. The school has been thinking about doing this for awhile because it will save the school quite a bit of money.



These days, Mr. D and I receive a lot of information from our trusty laptop. We receive general information via email about most of our children's activities. It is a great way to get a lot of information out to a large group of people in a timely manner.



We are fortunate to have a computer at home and the entire family is computer savvy enough to be able to do what we need to do and want to do on the computer.



Not everyone is so fortunate. I work in the public sector. I work in a suburb that has many blue collar workers, retired people and people who are English language learners. Many do not have a computer at home. If they do have a computer, they often need help with basic things like setting up an email account, searching for a job on the internet, or applying for unemployment.



Some organizations realize that computer access can be an issue and have done a good job of getting information to everyone. For example, our family can receive a paper copy and an electronic copy of the weekly religious education newsletter from our church. The middle school that one of our children attends sends out most information electronically but the school does keep their computer lab open on some evenings and provides a staff person in the lab to help parents.



Unfortunately, the elementary school has not indicated if or how it will get the weekly newsletter to parents who cannot readily access the internet. I hope that a young student will never be dropped off at the school in the morning and his parents go off to work, never realizing that the day is a scheduled teacher workday and a day off for students, all because the family could not access the school's weekly newsletter.



Communication becomes difficult when not everyone has the tools to receive the information that is being communicated. Maybe someone ought to communicate that to the communicators?

Inconvenient, Part Two

Well, it's only money, right?

New York City projects it will cost more than $400 million to provide security if the pre-trial preparation and trial of the suspects in the Sept. 11 terror attacks takes two years, which insiders say is virtually certain, according to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

And Chuck Schumer ain't picking up the tab, either:

Schumer released a statement today saying, "Not a nickel of these costs should be borne by New York taxpayers, because terrorism is a federal responsibility and this is a federal trial. I will do everything I can to see that the federal government fully owns up to its responsibility."

Tell you what: I bet we could come up with a much cheaper solution.

Inconvenient

Gotta shut down that Gitmo. What could go wrong?

The U.S. Marshals Service is searching for three escaped federal prisoners, including a man from Chicago, who fled from the Tri-County Detention Center in Ullin in Southern Illinois.

Oh, there's this, too.

Hawk to the Hall

Congratulations to Andre Dawson for finally earning selection to the Baseball Hall of Fame today. Dawson was one of the best players in the 1980s and was the complete package as a player: great speed (314 steals), tremendous power (438 home runs in the pre-steroid era) and probably the most feared outfield arm in the major leagues.

I remember Dawson best from his years in Chicago as member of the Cubs. He was especially magnificent in his first year in Chicago in 1987, a superstar on a team that had Ryne Sandberg and not much else. He hit 49 home runs that summer and drove in 137, which were highly impressive numbers for that era. In my mind, Dawson should have gone into the Hall before Jim Rice, who wasn't nearly as versatile a player. The biggest knock on Dawson was that his career batting average (.279) wasn't outstanding. It's tough to argue that should disqualify him when you consider that Rabbit Maranville (.258) is in the Hall, though.

We also must note the near miss of Bert Blyleven, who came up just a few votes short of gaining election this year. Blyleven was a very good pitcher with a very long career and I suspect his overall numbers would have been much better if he hadn't played for so many bad teams -- he spent most of his career toiling in places like Cleveland, Texas and here in Minnesota during the dark 1970s. Bert will almost certainly get in next year, as will Roberto Alomar, who also fell just a few votes short.

The Hall of Fame is a peculiar institution and the baseball writers are a peculiar bunch. While it's certainly a more exclusive club than other professional halls of fame, the standards are pretty hard to suss out. You can argue stats and make all manner of assumptions about how to rank the various players, but I can tell you this -- Dawson is clearly a Hall of Fame guy. So is Bert Blyleven, and so are Roberto Alomar, Barry Larkin, Jack Morris and Tim Raines. These guys were dominant players and all proved their value over the long haul. I would hope that all get to stand at the podium in Cooperstown before very long.

Old School Football

So has anyone else noticed that the oft-criticized Big Ten has a winning record in this year's bowl games? If one were to listen to the claims of ESPN, or the incessant baying of SEC fans (and devotees of the Southern variant of football generally), this would seem impossible.

What's most interesting is the teams that won their games, along with the pattern involved. Let's look back:

Wisconsin beats Miami

Penn State beats LSU

Ohio State beats Oregon

Iowa beats Georgia Tech

Other than being the four best teams in the Big Ten this year (sorry, Northwestern), what else do we know about the winning schools?

• All four schools are known for being power teams with strong running attacks


• All four schools have stout defenses


• All four schools can play ball control and keep the other team's high-powered offense off the field; indeed, that is how all four schools won their bowl games


• All four schools figure to be among the teams to beat in the conference for 2010

It's telling that those schools that stay with the basic game plan are the ones that had the greatest success this year. Especially in the case of the Badgers, Buckeyes and the Hawkeyes, all the pre-game prognostication said the same thing: the opponent was too fast, too talented and had a huge advantage in the offensive skill positions. There was no way that the bulky Badgers could stop the talented Jacory Harris and his arsenal of top-shelf Miami Hurricane receivers. Those Oregon Ducks had way too many weapons for the boring old Buckeyes and Jeremiah Masoli was going to run rings around them. There was no way that the plodding Hawkeyes could contain the vaunted triple option of Georgia Tech. Turns out there was a way. It's the old way, tried and true.

There's another message here, especially to the Michigan Wolverines, who were home for the holidays this year. The Wolverines have been perennial contenders for the conference championship for as long as there has been a Big Ten conference. Under both Bo Schembechler and Lloyd Carr, they were largely a vanilla team but were always fundamentally sound on offense and stout on defense. Yes, the Wolverines have had some tremendously talented skill players come through their program -- Tom Brady, we're looking at you -- but since Rich Rodriguez has come to Ann Arbor things have fallen away. I don't see the Wolverines returning to glory any time soon if they persist in playing a style of football that goes against what works in their conference. But fans of the other schools would be delighted if they persist in their current course.

Congratulations to the Badgers, Nittany Lions, Buckeyes and Hawkeyes. And to the fans of Southern football: at least for this year, y'all can be quiet now.

Radio Free Dilettante — 010510

It would appear that iTunes is in a very bad mood:

Last Five:
Use Me, Bill Withers
Guns Guns Guns, the Guess Who
Here Comes President Kill Again, XTC
Disappear, INXS
Mean to Me, Crowded House

Next Five:
The Goodbye Look, Donald Fagen
Half a Boy & Half a Man, Nick Lowe
A Most Peculiar Man, Simon & Garfunkel
The Black Angel's Death Song, Velvet Underground
I Feel So Good, Richard Thompson

Gino's Observation

I made reference yesterday to some comments from Willie Brown, the one-time majordomo of the California legislature, which prompted this typically pithy response from our friend Gino, who has the pleasure of being a Californian:

willie brown, though correct, has left out some of the stuff. CA pays out more money to those who are not working than those who are working.

with retirement at 50 for many workers, they recieve almost the same as their last salary(80-90%), plus the primo health benefits the private sector could never bargain for, and they're living til their 80's.

for some, their death would be a public service.

And right on schedule, someone else has noticed this problem. Kenneth Anderson at the Volokh Conspiracy blog notes the following from the Financial Times:

Estimates of aggregate funding requirement of the US pension system have ranged between $400bn and $500bn, but Mr Kramer’s analysis concluded that public funds would need to find more than $2,000bn to meet future pension obligations.

That's $2 trillion, folks. With a "T." A 2 with a vapor trail of zeroes following it. Gulp.

So who's going to pay that? Anderson wonders if anyone will:

Two trillion dollars? One question about these obligations is whether taxpayers will stick around to pay them, or instead will vote with their feet. (“Vote with their feet” is something that has been discussed in various ways at VC — as an aspect of a federal system and states with their own laws.) Many of these pension obligations have been incurred by municipalities and others by states, and in some cases the obligations are intertwined. But what happens if voters-taxpayers move out?

The assumption has long been that taxpayers are stuck, on account of jobs and other circumstance. But query whether that is necessarily true as the baby boom generation retires. In that case, it might find itself far more mobile, in circumstances where rising taxes at every level make relocation a more valuable decision at the margin. For that matter, if otherwise desirable locales manage to tax their businesses away, will the baby boomers’ kids and grandkids have reason ever to locate in places that lack jobs? They might have been raised there — but would they go back?

Anderson is describing California today. And as he notes later on, people are moving with their feet and have been. Ask a Coloradan if they've seen some new California neighbors in recent years.

The day of reckoning is coming, sooner than most of us might realize.

Lightning Round - 010410

It's a rare lunchtime edition of this popular feature!

• This is one of the better examples of counter-intuitive thinking that I've come across in a long time. Norway is having remarkable success treating staph infections, especially the horribly nasty version known as MRSA, by cutting down greatly on the amount of antibiotics that are used in hospitals.
• Speaking of counter-intuitive thinking, check out this column from Willie Brown, best known for his tenure at the helm of the profligate California legislature. He touches on a number of topics, but has a real Nixon-goes-to-China moment when he tells his Bay Area audience the following about the intractable budget crisis in California: "But at some point, someone is going to have to get honest about the fact that 80 percent of the state, county and city budget deficits are due to employee costs." That is a problem, and not just in California, I might add.
• Allahpundit over at Hot Air noticed that top Obama advisors no longer believe the 2007 NIE regarding Iran's nuclear program. They are about 2 1/2 years late to the party, but I'm glad they've finally arrived. Stop by the bar, we'll pour you a drink and there won't be any Kool-Aid in it.
• This probably deserves a separate post, but I'll include it here for now. Our portside friend Rich called to our attention the deep thoughts of John Brennan, who has the often-thankless task of manning the Homeland Security and counterterrorism desk for the Obama administration. Brennan was making the rounds of the talk shows and visited with Chris Wallace of evil Faux News yesterday, where he had this fascinating exchange about the notion of why the Obama administration has decided to use the criminal justice system in dealing with Umar Abdulmullatab, better known these days as the Eunuchbomber:

WALLACE: Perhaps the most controversial step that President Obama took after the Christmas day terror attack was to charge Abdulmutallab as a criminal defendant.

He was cooperating with authorities. He was giving information about his links to Al Qaida. But after he got a criminal lawyer, he reportedly stopped cooperating, stopped talking.

Why not treat him as an enemy combatant, put him in a secret prison, use the interrogation techniques that President Obama has specifically approved, and try to get more information out of him?

BRENNAN: Well, we have an array of tools that we will use, and we want to make sure we maintain flexibility as far as how we deal with these individuals.

Now, let's get the facts on the table. He was arrested on U.S. soil on a plane on -- in the Detroit airplane. He was, in fact, talking to people who were detaining him.

There were people who were arrested during the previous administration -- Richard Reid, the shoe bomber; Zacarias Moussaoui; Padilla; Iyman Faris; others -- all were charged and tried in criminal court and sentenced, some cases to life imprisonment.

Just because somebody is going to be put into the criminal legal process does not mean that they're -- we don't have other opportunities to get information from them.

WALLACE: But wait, wait. Let me ask you specifically. After Abdulmutallab got lawyered up, did he stop cooperating with authorities? Did he stop talking?

BRENNAN: I'm not going to address exactly what he did before or after he was -- talked with his lawyer. We got information. We continue to have opportunities to do that.

As you talk with the lawyers and you talk with the individuals, as they recognize what they're facing as far as the charges, conviction and possible sentence, there are opportunities to continue to talk about it.

FBI has some of the best interrogators and debriefers in the world, and so I'm confident that we're going to continue to be able to work this system and see whether or not...

WALLACE: But once he gets his Miranda rights, he doesn't have to speak at all.

BRENNAN: He doesn't have to, but he knows that there are certain things that are on the table, and if he wants to, in fact, engage with us in a productive manner, there are ways that he can do that.

WALLACE: But why not treat him -- you certainly had the right -- have -- had -- still have the right to treat him as an enemy combatant. Why not do that?

If he has more actionable intelligence about future attacks, and you say there's a real possibility of that, doesn't the president have a responsibility to do everything legal he can to get that information?

BRENNAN: And the president has that responsibility, and the Department of Justice makes these determinations about what's the best tool to use. And in this instance, we felt as though it was the best way to address Mr. Abdulmutallab's case.

We'll continue to look at each of the cases individually and proceed accordingly.

WALLACE: Just briefly, what's the downside of treating him as an enemy combatant?

BRENNAN: There's -- there are no downsides or upsides in particular cases. What we're trying to do is to make sure we apply the right tool in the right instance. In this case, we made a determination that he should be tried in U.S. criminal court.

Emphasis mine. That's called explaining without explaining. There is a reason that the decision was made, but Brennan isn't telling us. Would you like to know the reason? I would. I wish Wallace would have pressed the matter further, but as the transcript indicates, they moved on. The entire transcript is worth reading and it does include the language excoriating Dick Cheney that our Chicago-based correspondent likes so much.

Congratulations to the Packers (and the Purple, I suppose)

The playoffs should be a lot of fun this year.

Stop Picking on the President!

You meanies.

The real message was conveyed by Fouad Ajami, discussing the new administration’s foreign policy in the Wall Street Journal: “No despot fears Mr. Obama, and no blogger in Cairo or Damascus or Tehran, no demonstrator in those cruel Iranian streets, expects Mr. Obama to ride to the rescue.” True. Another Iranian deadline passed on New Year’s Eve, but the United States will set a new one for Groundhog Day or whenever.

And, just as the thug states understand they now have the run of the planet, so do the terror cells. A thwarted terror attack at Christmas is bad enough. Spending the following week making yourself a global joke is worse. Every A-list despot and dimestore jihadist got that message loud and clear — and so did American allies already feeling semi-abandoned by this most parochial of presidents. Expect a bumpy twelve months ahead. Happy New Year.

Cut it out, you meanies!

It speaks eloquently to the Obama administration’s priorities that it took the White House four days to acknowledge the “catastrophic breach of security” that led to the failed bombing of a US-bound jet on Christmas Day — but a scant four hours to accuse Dick Cheney of coddling terrorists.

The former vice president Wednesday harshly criticized the administration’s efforts — or non-efforts — against terrorism. Whereupon, Team Obama went ballistic.

It's so mean. It's so wrong. Just knock it off.

Benster and D Pick Your Games -- Week 17

It's Week 17 and some teams are looking to get into the playoffs! Can you feel the HYYYYYYPPPPE!!!!

I guess.

C'mon, Decrepit! Where's your enthusiasm? Did it go south for the winter? Or do you keep it in a glass on the counter with your teeth?

Hey now.

Okay, enough cheapshots directed at the old dude. Let's get down to bidness!

New York Football Giants (+9) vs. Minnesota Vikings. The Vikings come into this game needing a win and help to get a first round bye, which seemed like an absolute lock a few weeks ago before they started playing games in cold weather on the road. I wonder if Fav-ray is wearing out, because he can't get any rest tomorrow, or he'll have to play in the first round, which is something that Chilly really doesn't want to do. Especially if they have to play the Packers, which would start the Favre circus up again and lead to enormous quantities of HYYYYYYPPPPPE!!!!! Look for the Giants to be like the Poles in September, 1939. Vikes 84, New York Football Giants 13.

84-13? I believe that was the score that the Gophers lost to Nebraska about 25 years ago. We won't see that again on Sunday. I suspect the Vikings will play well and win the game, but my suspicion is that the Giants may make it interesting, mostly because they can and they feel like they owe the Vikings a few. Vikings 27, Giants 20.

Glorious Green Bay Packers (+3 1/2) vs. Arizona House of Cards. This game reads like a classified document. Green Bay really has nothing to gain from this game and chances are they will end up staying in Glendale for the Wild Card game next week, so they might not want to show any of their tactics to the Cardinals. However, the Cardinals have an outside chance of getting a first round bye, but then again they might still be playing the Packers. I'm thinking that for a lot of the game, it could be a battle between backup quarterbacks named Matt. Who do you like, Flynn or Leinart? They both won national championships in college, so they both know how to win. But Mr. Leinart is also a Heisman winner. While the fan in me says no to this, the reason in me says yes. Cardinals 28, Packers 22.

Actually, I see the game about the same. The Cardinals should know by kickoff if they'll have a chance at the first round bye -- if they do (by virtue of a Vikings loss), they'll play hard. If they don't, probably not so much. The Packers? They'll play to win for as long as it makes sense to do so. It will be an odd game, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's a blowout either way. For now, I'll agree with Seabiscuit, though. Cardinals 31, Packers 27.

Bear Down Chicago da Bearz (-3) vs. Motor City Common House Pets. Well, unlike the Packer-Cardinal game, there's no playoff implications in this one. The Lions have won only 2 games all year, which was an improvement over last year, even though the fans in Detroit are still wearing bags over their heads. This game does feature two of my favorite whipping boys, Jay Cutler, who actually showed some integrity last week, and the Detroit Lions as a team that, much like the local economy in Michigan, is going down faster than a hambone in a starving wolf convention. Detroit fans, keep those bags handy! Bears 73, Lions 0.

Did you say something, Ben? I must have dozed off thinking about this game. Cutler played well last week and that was somewhat amusing. The question here is this -- what will happen to Lovie Smith after the game? Will da Bearz play hard to save Lovie, or are they going to lie down, get Lovie fired and usher in the Mike Leach regime? Bears 21, Lions 14.

Okay, let's switch gears here and bring on the BCS National Championship Game (sort of). I am not going to engage in HYYYYYYPPPPPPE! for this one, because I think that Boise and TCU are getting robbed here. At least they should do a national semi-finals or "plus one" or something this time, that actually can rid of the mythical part of the mythical national championship. I'm not even sure that the University of Texas is the best college team in Texas!

Texas Longhorns (+4) vs. Alabama Crimson Tide, at Pasadena, CA. Okay, like I said earlier, I question why two power conference schools got into this game when two other just as good schools were sent off to Arizona. It's like saying you're good enough when all 4 teams went undefeated. But I'll leave that to the TCU and Boise fans. As for the game, I see that Alabama played the much better championship game, beating Florida pretty handily, while Colt McCoy got chased around a lot by Ndamukong Suh, who plays like this guy but whose name sounds like this guy. Anyway, Texas will have to beat Mark "I Struck the Heisman Pose" Ingram and Nick Saban will have to figure out a way to stop Colt "Texas Sheriff" McCoy and Jordan "Texas Deputy" Shipley. Roll Tide 31, We're Texas (And You're Not) 30.

I never knew you were a fan of Hong Kong Phooey, young fella. Glad to see you're upping your 70s quotient! As for the game, my usual rule of thumb is this -- in these games, the team with the better defense usually wins. That would be Alabama. So I'll pick them. Watch for the Tide to play ball control, keep McCoy off the field and win it Ohio State-style. Boring but effective. Alabama 24, Texas 16.

So you say that the next coach in Chicago is going to be Mike Leach? He'll be coming with a little baggage, but maybe he can keep the baggage in the closet where he stores wide receivers. Of course, Craig James probably won't like this joke much, but he probably won't understand it because he went to SMU. Ben out!

The Residue of Design

So do you know why terrorists are now coming from Yemen? Let the President explain:

"We're learning more about the suspect," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address that the White House released on Saturday as the president vacationed in Hawaii.

"We know that he traveled to Yemen, a country grappling with crushing poverty and deadly insurgencies. It appears that he joined an affiliate of al-Qaida, and that this group — al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula — trained him, equipped him with those explosives and directed him to attack that plane headed for America," the president said.

Yep, no doubt about it -- Yemen is a problem. Like Somalia, its neighbor across the Gulf of Aden, it is a failed state where al-Qaida and other similarly situated terrorist organizations operate with impunity.

But did you catch the part about "crushing poverty?" Unless I'm not parsing the President's words correctly, the implication seems to be that "crushing poverty" is one of the keys to producing terrorists. So what do we know about Umar Farouk Abdulmullatab, the guy who tried to blow up the plane? Take it away, Ed Morrissey:

Abdulmutallab lived a life of privilege. His father ran Nigeria’s Central Bank, and he had access to the best education money could buy. Instead, he got sucked into radical Islam and decided to dedicate his life to murdering others, and not out of any sense of hunger for food, but from the hunger of deadly malice that ate at his soul.

Abdulmutallab fits the typical profile of the modern al-Qaida terrorist: scion of a wealthy family, with access to education and financial resources far beyond most of his countrymen. He is a child of privilege. Kinda like Osama bin Laden, actually. Or this guy, another unsuccessful bomber of a different era.

So here are a few questions for the President to consider:

• If "crushing poverty" is a source of grievance, how does blowing up a plane alleviate the suffering of the average Yemeni or Nigerian? Or is it possible that something else is driving the behavior these terrorists?
• Have you read this book? If not, may I recommend it? Or this book, for that matter?

We got lucky with NW Flight 253. But it's worth remembering the words of Branch Rickey: luck is the residue of design. If we want to maximize our luck in the future, we need to stop believing foolishness.

New Year's Dilettante

Happy New Year! I couldn't be happier that 2009 is in the rearview mirror. While 2009 wasn't especially terrible for me personally, far too many people I know suffered a lot in the past year. I am hopeful that this coming year will be better.

What do I envision for this feature in 2010? Here are a few guesses:

• I am hoping to feature more writing by people other than myself. I've had a lot of fun helping Benster and Fearless Maria record their thoughts on the passing scene. For the most part we've limited their contributions to outlandish football picks and cultural critiques of very old music, but they have ideas on many other topics and I would like to feature their ideas more in 2010. Our friend the Night Writer has provided us with an excellent example of how this can work. You can get an excellent read on Tiger Lilly, Mall Diva, the Reverend Mother and the Man With a Thousand Blog Names over there. Oh, and you might learn some exciting news, too!


• I'm also hoping that I can convince Mrs. D to post more often. As I think you'll agree, she's very good. And maybe I can convince Stinger to start posting again. I'll try, but his life as a dazzling urbanite man-about-town seems to be pretty time consuming.


• Will we talk about politics here? Yes, of course. Every year I vow to write less about politics, but like Michael Corleone when I think I'm out, events pull me back in. This is an election year and there are a lot of events to cover. It's especially important in Minnesota, as the entire legislative branch is up for re-election and we will elect a new governor. It's crucial we get this right.


• I want to do more in-depth writing. I seem to manage a multi-part series at least once or twice a year and the results are usually pretty good. A worthwhile blog cannot live on snark alone.

Thank you for your continuing support of our efforts to make sense of the world here in the Neighborhood. One last thought -- when I was a kid I always thought Fred Rogers was a sap, but my opinion of him has changed completely. Now, I admire Fred Rogers greatly. The reason he was successful was simple: he was always respectful of his audience and genuinely cared about the people who crossed his path. That's a pretty good way to go through life, I think.