Mort Zuckerman voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and has been walking it back ever since. He has a longish piece at U.S. News this week that lays out some reasons Obama may be in trouble after all:
If you are on disability, you are not considered to be in the labor force either. As of April, we have added 5.5 million people to the disability rolls since the beginning of 2009, several million above the previous trend. There are now roughly 9 million people on disability. In 1992, there was one person on disability for every 35 workers. It is now about one for every 16 workers. It is hard to believe that so many people have become disabled; disability has literally become another fallback position for people out of work. If disability had stayed at the pre-recession growth rate, unemployment would be at least one percentage point higher, leading to a true unemployment rate much closer to 10 percent and perhaps significantly more.
Underemployment is still in the range of 16 percent, and that does not count people who have a job for which they are overqualified or who are making much less money because they are aren't working in their chosen field. John Williams at Shadowstats, who uses the U.S. government methodology from 30 years ago, tells us that the U-6 unemployment rate is around 23 percent. The difference is in how you create the model. The feds keep changing the rules, and it should be no surprise that with each new rule the number of people officially counted as unemployed drops. If you can't find a job, whether officially employed or not, you are still out of work. Far too many workers have been idle for extended periods, and it is crucial to get them back into the labor force before their skills atrophy and their earning power shrinks permanently.
And there's more:
Every president in modern times who has inherited a recession from his predecessor boasts a better track record. In fact, of the past 10 recessions, this has been the weakest recovery ever. And in the second quarter, GDP growth was down to 1.3 percent. And a slew of major hard data since the beginning of September have had to be revised sharply lower. Non-farm payrolls, retail sales, industrial production, and housing starts all received downward bumps, setting a stage for an even more sluggish performance in the third quarter. Durable goods orders in August served up another huge downward slide.
Indeed, the 1.3 reading on the second quarter GDP marks the weakest growth in the 12th quarter after a recession. By this time, at the same stage of a recovery, real GDP is expanding on average at 4.7 percent. That is after four years of $1 trillion plus fiscal deficits. Orders plunged to 13.2 percent sequentially during August, far exceeding the market expectations for a 5 percent decline.
There's a lot more at the link. It's worth your time.
That's at a Shell station in Fresno. It's worse in other places. The reasons for this? I can think of three:
Refinery issues
California's insane environmental laws, which make it impossible to get gas into the state from neighboring states
Quantitative easing, which means that even after this spike ends, prices won't get much better any time soon
For what it's worth, I just paid $3.64/gallon at the SA at the corner of Old Highway 8 and County Road D in Roseville. Roseville, Minnesota, that is. Current price in Roseville, California, which is near Sacramento if I remember correctly? About the same as Fresno.
I never thought I'd feel lucky to pay $3.64/gallon for gasoline. But right now, I do.
For reference, here are the prices in some of the areas where regular readers of this feature live (all prices available from GasBuddy.com)
In the Inland Empire, it's about $4.63
In south suburban Chicago, it's about $4.09
In Seattle, it's about $3.89
In suburban Portland, it's about $4.03
In my hometown of Appleton, it's about $3.89
In Madison, it's about $3.75
If I missed your location, let me know. This is a story that hasn't been getting much attention, but it may yet.
Sorry, people -- I know that we're kinda late but I'm still cranky about last night. The mighty Irondale Knights lost their game at Spring Lake Park last night and I was there, freezing my butt off for the whole thing while the Geritol Fan was busy partying in South Minneapolis in a heated apartment with a college pal.
South Minneapolis is lovely this time of year. Better than Spring Lake Park High School when it's 40 degrees out.
So I found out. But that's okay, because I'm here now to bring the heat. And the HYYYYYYPPPPPPE! Watch me work!
Illinois Fighting Illini (+14) vs. Beloved Wisconsin Badgers. Well, the Badgers played well last week at Nebraska, but they ran out of gas. Illinois has been just, well, turrible, as Charles Barkley would say. They lost 52-24 to Louisiana Tech. And I believe they also lost to Spring Lake Park High School, but I haven't been able to confirm that. The question for the Badgers is this -- can they spring Montee Ball for a long one? It hasn't happened all season, but it's bound to happen. The Badgers are getting their act together and Illinois is not. Grateful Red 42, Orange Crush 31. I checked the Google and have verified that the Illini did not lose to Spring Lake Park, although they were dispatched in a scrimmage game by Hoopeston/East Lynn High School, in Illinois, who are known as the Cornjerkers. And I think the Badgers are going to jerk around the Illini pretty good today. Badgers 35, Illini 7. Miami Hurricanes (+14) vs. Notre Dame Golden Domers, in Chicago. The Gophers are on bye this week, so we turn our attention to NBC's favorite team, Notre Dame. We don't talk about the Irish much around here, because (a) they haven't been relevant since before I was born, and (b) Geritol Fan hates them. But here's a chance to mention them. The Irish are getting better again; they are undefeated and dispatched every Big Ten team they faced, including playing very well against Michigan. So are the Irish for real? I say yes. Irish 34, Hurricanes 17. It's true -- I don't like Notre Dame much. Catholic kids, especially those who attend Catholic high schools in the Midwest, get a steady stream of Notre Dame propaganda throughout their school years and kids either decide to buy the hype or not. I didn't. But enough psychodrama. Will the Irish win today? Yes, because Miami isn't very good these days. But it will get tougher for the Irish later on. ND 28, Miami 10. Tennessee Tuxedos (+5 1/2) vs. Minnesota Vikings. So while we were worrying about other things, the Vikings somehow got to 3-1. They went to Detroit last week and ran the Lions out of their own building. Couple that with an impressive victory over the 49ers the week before, and all of a sudden the Vikings are relevant and media darlings, to boot. So should you believe the HYYYYYYYPPPPPPPPE? I say no. Tuxedos 24, Vikings 21. For those who don't remember who Tennessee Tuxedo is, I'll present the following tutorial:
Nothing quite like a penguin who sounds like Maxwell Smart. Would you believe the Titans can win in Minnesota? Maybe, but I think Matt Hasselbeck won't enjoy the company of Jared Allen very much. Vikes will come back to earth eventually, but not this week. Vikings 24, Titans 16. Glorious Green Bay Packers (-7) vs. Indianapolis Lucks. Well, last week was a very scary game. How scary? Very scary. But the Packers survived the efforts of Drew Brees and Jeff Triplette to win a game they had to have. And now they get Indy and their first look at Andrew Luck, Wonder Quarterback! I wouldn't sleep on the Colts because they're a sneaky team, but the Packers should have no trouble this week. Packers 77, Colts 0. No, young fella -- the Packers are playing the Colts, not the Illini. I think the Packers will win, but Indy will make them sweat a little. Packers 24, Colts 14.
Sorry that this was a little brief, but my North Suburban Conference duties are very important. We may go early next week because I'll be off to the wilds of Fred C. Andersen Scout Camp for the Northwest District Camporee. And when I go camping, I bring two things -- a canteen and the HYYYYYPPPPPPPE! Ben out!
I've been remiss in discussing local races, which matter as much or more as the presidential race. One of the most important matters at hand for New Brighton residents is retiring Barb Goodwin, the placeholder DFLer who currently represents the area in the state Senate. Over at Enlighten New Brighton, Steve Taylor makes the case clearly:
Incumbent senator Barb Goodwin has been a disaster and an embarrassment. Her record is one of expanding the reach of government and the political influence of her party at the expense of our wealth and liberty. Goodwin has vigorously fought efforts to reign in government largesse while staunchly promoting a radically liberal big government, big labor agenda. Her actions indicate that she answers to her party leadership and special interest supporters with little regard to the people of her district.
In contrast, Gina Bauman has a stellar record of advocacy for the people. In her seven years in city government Gina has successfully fought to control spending and reform policies that were not in the best interests of the people without cutting essential services. She will do the same for us in the Minnesota Senate.
Gina has done a great job and is one of the most genuine people I know. She understands what needs to be done in St. Paul. We'll be talking more about this race, and several others, in the coming days, because a lot rides on the outcome of these elections.
Peggy Noonan has been hit-or-miss for a number of years now, but this observation seems right to me:
Jim Lehrer has been criticized as an inadequate moderator. He was old-school and a pro. He didn't think it was about him. How quaint. He asked questions, allowed a certain amount of leeway to both candidates, which allowed each to reveal himself, and kept things moving. Most of the criticism seems to have come from those who hoped Mr. Obama would emerge triumphant. Mr. Lehrer should not take it personally. Every shot at him was actually a warning shot aimed at the next moderator, Martha Raddatz. She's being told certain outcomes are desirable.
And Raddatz can consider that observation to be a warning shot as well.
They haven't replaced wallets with wheelbarrows in Iran yet, but it could be coming, Megan McCardle reports:
Steve Hanke estimates that inflation is running at 70% a month. This is, as Alex Tabarrok points out, nowhere near a record. Still, it's a Big Deal. Hyperinflation has brought down governments--Iran is experiencing protests over the collapsing rial. And it's not hard to see why. At the current rate of inflation the value of a savings account (or a mattress stash) is now barely 40% of what it was one month ago. In a few more months, even a healthy balance will be about enough to buy a pack of gum.
Hyperinflation is destabilizing in all sorts of other ways--it quickly becomes impossible to buy foreign exchange, and therefore, to buy imports; contracts become hellish to write; investment is practically impossible; and the sheer administrative difficulty of acquiring and handling enough cash becomes ever-more problematic. In Germany, it's really true that people used wheelbarrows to car their pocket change around, and housewives really used to run to the factory gates at lunch so they could get their husband's paycheck and spend it immediately--waiting until evening would have meant losing an appreciable amount of purchasing power. In effect, effort that used to be put into productive labor instead becomes focused on getting and spending money as quickly as possible.
This could be a game-changer in a place where the game desperately needs to change. We'll need to pay close attention.
I've been noticing a lot of triumphalism on the Right today, following the shaky performance of President Obama in yesterday's debate. Let’s cut to the chase.
• Obama will be better in the next debate. Likely, significantly better.
• While I've been skeptical of the polling for the entirety of this cycle, especially polls with anything showing a +5 edge for the Democrats, I doubt that Romney is actually leading at the moment. It's more likely that Obama has a small lead than not, or that Romney and Obama are tied.
• A lot of things are happening right now that will give Obama a chance to show leadership, especially in the Middle East. You may not have noticed it, but Turkey and Syria are on the brink of war. Turkey is a member of NATO, which means the U.S. has an obligation to get involved if war actually begins in earnest. Meanwhile, Iran is spiraling into a financial crisis and if things start to get desperate for the mullahs, you could see any number of things happen that will knock the debate results right off the front page.
• There are a whole lot of powerful people who are "all in" for Obama and they aren't likely to back away from him just because Obama had a rough night.
Bottom line — Romney likely helped himself last night. But he has a lot of challenges remaining. I wouldn't be taking any victory laps just yet.
UPDATE: While my advice stands, the reviews of what happened last night continue to come in. Tough hop for Big Bird on this one. Jim Lehrer can't be too happy, either. Don't miss Romney going Gangnam Style at the end:
The reviews are in for last night's debate and they aren't pretty. Andrew Sullivan is despairing:
Look: you know how much I love the guy, and you know how much of a high information viewer I am, and I can see the logic of some of Obama's meandering, weak, professorial arguments. But this was a disaster for the president for the key people he needs to reach, and his effete, wonkish lectures may have jolted a lot of independents into giving Romney a second look.
Obama looked tired, even bored; he kept looking down; he had no crisp statements of passion or argument; he wasn't there. He was entirely defensive, which may have been the strategy. But it was the wrong strategy. At the wrong moment.
The person with authority on that stage was Romney - offered it by one of the lamest moderators ever, and seized with relish. This was Romney the salesman. And my gut tells me he sold a few voters on a change tonight. It's beyond depressing. But it's true.
I was live-blogging last night (you can see that below this post) and so I really didn't concentrate on the body language and mannerisms of the candidates as much as the words. I've since had a chance to see a few clips of the debate and the body language was crucial. Sullivan's description is pretty much spot-on -- it was evident from body language that Romney was significantly more engaged than the president was.
In some respects, I almost wonder if Obama really doesn't want the job any more. He didn't look at his watch a la George H. W. Bush, but there was a bit of that in his performance. While Obama was mired in details, I've never thought that he enjoys delving into them that much. And it's somewhat amusing to see the guy who campaigned in 2008 on Hope and Change demanding specificity this time. But there you are.
The other problem is this -- I think that the Praetorian Guard that surrounds Obama hurt him in last night's debate, since it wasn't there. Obama isn't used to being challenged directly on his assertions and yesterday he didn't have anyone running interference for him. Romney was polite but he put a lot of arguments back in the president's face. In his own way, Romney is a pretty ruthless dude and on second viewing you could see how he took control of things in large ways and small. The one line that Romney uncorked that will do him the most good concerned Solyndra and green energy. I don't have the exact quote, but it was something like "you don't pick the winners and losers, you just pick the losers." There are a fair number of low information voters who may not know about Solyndra, but if they find out it won't be helpful to the president.
Did yesterday move the needle for Romney? Perhaps. The one thing that changed is this -- Romney wasn't much like the Gordon Gekko/cyborg persona that you've seen in caricatures and Obama television ads. He's a sharp, sharp man and he looked the part last night. Obama still has some significant advantages on his side, but he needs to do better in the next debate. Most of all, Obama needs to tell the American people why he wants the job again. He didn't do that last night and it seems to have cost him.
Okay, we're going to try this. It could be amusing, it could stink. We'll start with a little musical interlude. We'll be on to Denver in just a moment.
7:57 p.m. Michele Bachmann is running the same ads she ran against Tarryl Clark against Jim Graves. Probably saves on pre-production costs. Benster says he might have some post-debate comments. He hasn't offered a pointspread, though.
8 p.m. We're about to begin. Jim Lehrer is at the helm, so this should be earnest. Here he comes.
8:02 p.m. Lehrer announces that he has made the decisions on which questions get asked. And he wants no noises from the audience. Here they come. Obama has a blue/purple tie, while Romney is out in his 1987 power tie getup.
8:04 p.m. First question is about jobs. How does the president or Romney create jobs. Obama begins and starts with a shout-out to his wife, since it's their anniversary. Obama is now using the same narrative he's always used. Here come the strawmen -- invest in energy (but not coal, of course) and reduce deficits in a "balanced" way. Same crap we've heard before. Still blaming George Bush. Breaks out the "economic patriotism." Hate that.
8:06 p.m. Romney starts with the travelogue. He's been to Dayton and Denver. Can he help, the people ask. Whacks the strawmen. Now he comes down to the five point plan. We've heard this before too. Emphasis is on small business -- Romney "knows what it takes." Now he says "trickle down government."
8:09 p.m. Lehrer asks Obama about "trickle-down government." Obama starts rattling off the programs. Guess Romney was right. Obama wants to lower the corporate tax rate? He could have done that already, wonder why he hasn't? Still pushing the wind and solar and biofuels. This should give Romney a Solyndra opening.
8:11 p.m. Lehrer asks Romney about Obama's claims. Romney says he won't lower taxes on the rich. Talks about the crushing effect of costs -- gas, health care, etc. Middle income families are getting crushed. Education is key, Romney says. Talks about 47 different federal programs -- wants to send the money to the states. Lots of hand gestures, pushing things down. Split screen shows Obama smirking. Romney likes coal. More crushing, Romney says. No tax cut that adds to the deficit -- wants to reduce the burden on middle class. I'd like to know how.
8:14 p.m. Obama says he cut middle class taxes by $3600 per family. Not so far as I could tell. That payroll tax cut is going away, by the way. Obama doubles down on his earlier claim. $5 trillion in tax cuts. Says it's not possible. This will be a fact checkers festival, if they choose to. Going back to the "top down" rhetoric.
8:16 p.m. Romney says virtually everything Obama said is inaccurate. Romney doubles down. Compares Obama and Biden to his five sons, who told stories that weren't true when they were kids, apparently. Obama didn't like that. Now Romney's talking about small businesses.
8:19 p.m. Obama says Romney's bold new plan is "never mind." Obama says he lowered taxes on small businesses 18 times. But still wants tax increases on incomes over $250,000. That money could go to employees, or to Obama. Well, government employees need to be paid, I suppose. Says "Donald Trump is a small business." Obama warns of drastic cuts.
8:21 p.m. Lehrer wants to start the next segment. But he lets Romney finish. Points out that a businessman already pays an effective rate of 50%. Says Obama's plan will eliminate 700,000 jobs. Another number for the fact-checkers.
8:23 p.m. Obama still insists that Romney wants a $5 trillion tax cut. Either it's true, or it isn't. Says "math, common sense and history" dictate otherwise. By the way, how may trillion has been added to the national debt since 2009? He also wraps himself in Bill Clinton.
8:25 p.m. Romney says it's still not his plan. Jim Lehrer has lost control, by the way. Romney now goes to the last four years. 23 million out of work. 47 million on food stamps now. 47 -- where have I heard this before.
8:26 p.m. Lehrer now talks about federal debt. What are the differences on tackling the deficit.
8:28 p.m. Romney says it's a moral issue, not leaving debt to our children. Benster, watching with me, says "thank you." Romney talks about cutting. He'll cut Obamacare and PBS. Fearless Maria, also watching, wonders about cutting Big Bird. Now he discusses the huge debt Obama had.
8:28 p.m. Obama blames Bush again. Last I checked, Bush is somewhere in Texas. Obama claims he's cut 77 government programs. Went after medical fraud. Saved $50 billion in waste. Cut $1 trilllion out of budget. Well, that's easy when you raise the budget by $2 billion. Obama has a website. Mentions Bowles-Simpson. We'll hear more about this, I imagine. Obama is now officially filibustering -- blew past the two minute limit, daring Lehrer to stop.
8:31 p.m. Lehrer asks about Simpson-Bowles. Romney suggests Obama should have taken it up. Obama interrupts him. Romney explains why you shouldn't raise taxes. Suggests that more than just Donald Trump will get taxed more.
8:33 p.m. Lehrer tries to regain control. Not gonna happen. Now Romney is filibustering. Compares us to Spain. Well, I've never been to Spain, but I kinda like the music.
8:34 p.m. Obama is now bashing the oil companies. $4 billion in corporate welfare. ExxonMobil is very similar to Emmanuel Goldstein. Let's get those corporate jets, too. Can we tax Air Force One? Loopholes, deductions, yadda yadda. Romney looks incredulous. Balanced approach. Talks about helping young people. Benster says he doesn't want Obama's help.
8:36 p.m. Romney says $90 billion in breaks for green energy. $90 billion of tax breaks into solar and wind. There's Solyndra, Tesla -- "you don't just pick the winners and losers, you just pick the losers." Re overseas tax breaks -- Romney says the tax break for moving jobs overseas isn't true. Wants states to block grant Medicaid. States are laboratory of democracy. Let states do this.
8:39 p.m. Lehrer now talks about entitlements. What are the differences on Social Security? Obama says SS is structurally sound. Talks about Reagan/O'Neill fix from 25 years ago. Talking about his grandmother and says she was independent because of Medicare and Social Security. We're now talking about the $716 billion for "overpaying" insurance. This would be Medicare Advantage. The money goes to Obamacare, of course.
8:42 p.m. Romney says, don't worry about any changes for any current retirees or near retirees. If you're 60 or more, don't worry. Points out that $716 billion savings is just cutting the rates hospitals get paid. Doctors and hospitals won't take patients. End of Medicare Advantage. Put the money back into Medicare.
8:44 p.m. Obama says Medicare is a voucher program under Romney. Obama's against it. Insurance companies are gonna cherry pick, Obama says. His grandmother is at the mercy of the private system. AARP supports Obama. Well, yeah. AARP gets a lot of money under Obamacare.
8:47 p.m. Romney says you can stay in Medicare or try a different system, presumably vouchers. If the government can be as efficient as the private sector, people will choose Medicare. Romney is talking about means-testing benefits. Back to Ryan/Wyden and Simpson/Bowles. How about Baskin/Robbins?
We've talked a few times about the problem of media bias in recent days. Ace commenter Brian raised an important point over at Gino's place, in what became a somewhat heated discussion between himself and your truly:
If you can convince a substantial portion of your supporters that the press is simply not to be trusted, that they are in the bag for the other team, then you are effectively never going to be held accountable for anything that you say or do.
Emphasis in the original. While Brian and I don't see eye to eye on this issue for a variety of reasons, he's absolutely correct that accountability matters.
I'd like to think that we all hold ourselves, and the candidates we support, accountable. In practice, there's an all-too-human tendency to let things slide.
Most people don't follow politics as closely as Brian does, or I do. That's not going to change. It's also why having a press you can trust is so important. In some respects I prefer the British model, where you have a variety of newspapers and it's easy to know where they stand. The Telegraph is right-wing, the Guardian is left-wing, the Times of London tries to straddle things (tending to be center/right) and the Daily Mail and the Sun tend to be prurient. Since everyone knows the biases of each publication, you can read a bunch of them to get a wider perspective, or you can cast your lot with your ideological favorite. Let's poll the question:
Cong. Darrell Issa, who has been one of the most consistent thorns in the side of the Obama administration, wants answers about what actually happened in Benghazi. And Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would love to share more information, just love to. Eventually:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote to House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrel Issa (R-CA) Tuesday afternoon to pledge the State Department's full cooperation with Congress in getting to the bottom of the Sept. 11 attack on the Benghazi consulate that killed Amb. Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
"I appreciate that you and your committee are deeply interested in finding out what happened leading up to and during the attacks in Benghazi, and are looking for ways to prevent it from happening again. I share that commitment," Clinton wrote in the letter, obtained by The Cable. "Nobody will hold this department more accountable than we hold ourselves -- we served with Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods."
Clinton said that the State Department's Accountability Review Board will begin work this week and the letter revealed the names of all five board members. In addition to former Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Pickering, who will lead the board, the other members will be former Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen (ret.), Catherine Bertini, Hugh Turner, and Richard Shinnick.
Clinton asked Issa to withhold any final conclusions about the Benghazi attack until the review board finishes its work and reports to Congress, which could come as early as November or as late as early next year. She pledged to work with Issa's committee and asked him to submit any requests for information or witnesses at hearings to the State Department's Office of Legislative Affairs.
Emphasis mine. Yeah, that timing would work out real well for the current administration. Heck, any time after Nov. 7 should be just swell.
"Today, due to the continued US hostile policy towards the DPRK, the vicious cycle of confrontation and aggravation of tensions is an ongoing phenomenon on the Korean Peninsula, which has become the world's most dangerous hot spot and where a spark of fire could set off a thermonuclear war," Pak said.
Pak would be Pak Kil-yon, the North Koren foreign minister. He said that at the United Nations. The food shipments from the south must be late again. Maybe we need a little more of this:
So, I watched the excerpt of the Obama "bombshell" speech that the Daily Caller has up on its website. Go ahead and click the link if you're interested. What does it prove?
Obama has lied about his relationship with Jeremiah Wright. Which we've known since 2008.
Obama can be demagogic. Which we've known since 2004 on a national level, and alert Chicagoans have known since the 1990s.
Obama says things that people want to hear and tailors the content of his speeches and the cadence of his voice to his audience. Which we've known about every politician for well, ever.
Within hours of last month's attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, President Barack Obama's administration received about a dozen intelligence reports suggesting militants connected to al Qaeda were involved, three government sources said.
Despite these reports, in public statements and private meetings, top U.S. officials spent nearly two weeks highlighting intelligence suggesting that the attacks were spontaneous protests against an anti-Muslim film, while playing down the involvement of organized militant groups.
It was not until last Friday that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's office issued an unusual public statement, which described how the picture that intelligence agencies presented to U.S. policymakers had "evolved" into an acknowledgement that the attacks were "deliberate and organized" and "carried out by extremists."
The existence of the early reports appears to raise fresh questions about the Obama administration's public messaging about the attack as it seeks to fend off Republican charges that the White House failed to prevent a terrorist strike that left a U.S. ambassador and three others dead.
It raises a lot of questions. I'll be curious to see if any questions get asked tomorrow night in Denver. I'd like to hear the president's explanation.
Today is one of those days in which we are particularly grateful that George W. Bush is no longer the president of the United States.
The news from Afghanistan is grim. With the latest round of deaths, we pass a milestone: 2,000 US combatants have died in what is now the longest war in American history. The milestone has been reached just as the surge in troops has come to an end without achieving the goals of pacifying the country or even launching peace talks with the Taliban. Our Afghan “allies” remain as corrupt and ineffectual as ever, with the added wrinkle that the most dangerous place in Afghanistan for US troops these days seems to be the neighborhood of US-armed and trained Afghan forces, who are shooting and blowing up their nominal allies faster than the Taliban can do it.
This is all bad news and very disturbing, but there is a crumb of comfort to be had. Because these failures happened on President Obama’s watch, the mainstream press isn’t particularly interested in relentless, non-stop scrutiny of the unpleasant news. If George W. Bush were president now, and had ordered the surge and was responsible for the strategic decisions taken and not taken in Afghanistan over the last four years, the mainstream press would be rubbing our noses in his miserable failures and inexcusable blunders 24/7. The New York Times and the Washington Post would be treating us to pictures of every fallen soldier. The PBS Newshour would feature nightly post-mortems on “America’s failed strategies in the Afghan War” and every arm-chair strategist in America would be filling the op-ed pages with the brilliant 20/20 hindsight ideas that our pathetic, clueless, failed president was too dumb and too cocky to have had.
There would be no end to the woes and the recriminations. There would be the most moving and eloquent examples of hand wringing in the New York Review of Books, elegantly demonstrating that the cretinous assumptions and moral failings that led Bush into his failed Afghan policy weren’t his alone, but reflected broader, deeper failings in America itself. One is almost sorry for the sake of the authors of these diatribes that Bush is gone; the failure of our Afghan strategy is so sweeping, so unavoidable, that it would be the best possible backdrop against which to paint a stirring portrait of a failed president misleading a flawed people. What works of polemical literature have been lost, what inspired jeremiads will never be penned, what scalding portraits of America’s inherent flaws will never see the light of day because W left the White House too soon.
I think Joel Pollak is onto something in arguing that the media’s taken to treating Romney as the de facto incumbent, although I can’t decide if that’s something they’re doing consciously or by instinct. My hunch is that, for some of them, it’s less a deliberate strategy to put Romney on the defensive than it is a habit they’re falling into because they’re itching to return to adversarial/watchdog duty. Their partisan leanings have made that too difficult for four years, but now they’ve got a person on the other side who’s close to winning the presidency to whom they can speak “truth.” So President Romney’s statement the morning after the embassy attack is a Very Big Deal with Very Serious Implications for the race, but Obama blowing town to raise some money in Vegas later that night is “curious” or whatever. Rest assured, if Romney wins, Afghanistan will once again be a matter of pressing national interest subject to “grim milestone” watches on the news rather than the very minor foreign-policy subplot that it’s become. In fact, I doubt most members of the media would deny that. One thing I’ve noticed as media watchdogging has exploded online is that they’re much more open about admitting which way the press, as a whole, leans. There are too many examples of it to deny it, so why bother denying it? They’ll cop to it in the aggregate, so long as their own personal integrity isn’t questioned. Now if only they’d do something about it.
Mitt Romney is about as close to defeating President Barack Obama as any Republican could have hoped to be. The polls--if you believe them--show him slightly or significantly behind, but within striking distance. The challenge he faces is unique: he is acting, and is being treated as, the incumbent rather than the insurgent. In effect, "President" Romney has been in office since mid-August, with none of the power but all of the responsibility.
Pollak's bill of particulars:
It was President Romney, not Obama, who set aside time to visit victims of Hurricane Isaac. It was President Romney, not Obama, who reacted swiftly to the attacks on our embassies by standing up for American freedom. It was President Romney, not Obama, who took on the entitlements crisis head-on by adopting many of Paul Ryan’s ideas. It was President Romney, not Obama, who laid out a practical plan for the housing crisis.
The media have also treated Romney as the incumbent, pouncing on every word and gesture, seizing on every mistake and inventing errors where none exist. Romney’s so-called “gaffes” have one thing in common: they are all statements of fact. He is being held to a presidential standard--for presidents should know better than to tell all--while Obama’s outright lies to the nation (on Libya, the debt, etc.) are ignored by the media.
Obama’s failures as the actual incumbent are also passed over--or spun into positives. We reached 2,000 dead in Afghanistan? Hey, Obama “ended the war.” Unemployment still above 8 percent? Oh, that jobs report was “better than expected.” We were attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11, and Obama lied about it? Don’t worry, “bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive.” Growth down to 1.3%? Say--“No one could have done it better.”
The question is why:
Romney is also the incumbent in a cultural sense--he is the old, rich, white guy that 45 years of higher education and Hollywood have inveighed against. He has a stake in the system and values that two successive generations of elites have been taught to hate. And so an election that ought to have been a referendum on Obama, and which Obama hoped to turn into a choice between him and Romney, is now a referendum on Romney alone.
He knows more about politics than I do. Or just about anyone else. So when he says:
It may be that we're seeing the phenomenon we've seen for years in exit polls, which have consistently skewed Democratic (and toward Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries). Part of that is interviewer error: Exit poll pioneer Warren Mitofsky found the biggest discrepancies between exit polls and actual results were in precincts where the interviewers were female graduate students.
But he also found that Democrats were simply more willing to fill out the exit poll. Which raises the question: Are we seeing the same thing in this month's polls?
It's a question that the triumphalists on the left need to consider.
Yeah, we're trying to sneak these in under the wire. I was at Benilde-St. Margaret's last night, as I watched the mighty Irondale Knights wreck Benilde's homecoming by the final score of 20-14. The Knights are now 4-1, baby! By the way, how did your high school do last night, old dude?
They lost to Waupaca last night, thus having their own homecoming spoiled. Tough year for the Xavier Hawks.
It happens, old dude. From what you've told me, you're used to football disappointment, especially where your high school is concerned. Didn't you tell me that your team finished 2-7 all four years you were a student there?
That's right. Consistently poor. Kinda like my picking last week.
I was going to say something about that, but I'll let it pass. This time. Meanwhile, time for the HYYYYYPPPPPE! Watch me work.
Minnesota Gooooooolden Gophers (+7) vs. Iowa Hawkeyes. Now, I know that Vegas doesn't pay a lot of attention to the Gophers and this pointspread is no different. C'mon guys -- the Gophers are 4-0 and Iowa is 2-2 with a home loss to Central Michigan on their record. Really? Really? I'd also remind the boys in Vegas that the Gophers have won two straight in this rivalry. They've brought the Pig down to Iowa City with them. They'll be bringing it back. And there won't be any shenanigans in the restrooms. Gophs 14, Iowa 9. I'd almost forgotten about the rutting Iowans. That was four years ago. A lot has changed in this series. I'm not 100% convinced that the Gophers have turned the corner, but I think this is a winnable game. And lately the characteristic of Jerry Kill teams is that they win winnable games. Gophers 24, Iowa 16. Beloved Wisconsin Badgers (+11 1/2) vs. Nebraska Cornhuskers. The Badgers looked a little better last week against UTEP. This ain't UTEP. Nebraska will have revenge on its mind after the 48-17 beatdown they took in Madison last year. The Badgers do have a history of playing well on the road in the Big Ten, although last year they lost on a couple of Hail Marys. We don't like Hail Marys around here. Will it come down to a Hail Mary this time? No. Bucky 56, Herbie Husker 31. Uh, no. The Badgers are better than they've shown so far, but this time they'll be facing a very motivated opponent. Nebraska has defensive issues and I expect the Badgers to score a little, but they won't put 56 up in Lincoln. Nebraska 31, Wisconsin 27. Minnesota Vikings (+4 1/2) vs. Detroit Lions. So are the Vikings turning the corner? Possibly. Christian Ponder played very well against the 49ers last week and they are playing a team that still doesn't play defense. I mean, really? Tennessee Titans 44, Detroit 41? 44 points? Tennessee had scored 23 points in the two games before they faced Detroit and they hang 44 on the Lions? That spells trouble. In fact, former Lions defensive great Alex Karras had the following reaction to the Lions performance last week:
No, PETA, I'm not taking your calls. Vikes 24, Lions 21. Good move, young fella. I think the Lions win, because if they don't they're done. But they are a very flawed team and the Vikings are making progress. Just not this week. Lions 31, Vikings 23. New Orleans Saints (+7 1/2) vs. Glorious Green Bay Packers. Thank you, Roger Goodell. The two angriest teams in the league meet at Lambeau, both harmed greatly by the moronic NFL commissioner. Whatever you think about the Saints, they still have a legitimate grievance. I have seen no evidence of any hits that can be construed as cash motivated. They might have been cheap shots, but there aren't many teams in the league that don't uncork a few of those. And then there's the disgraceful events in Seattle last week. I have a ton of things to say about that, but I'm really trying to keep the old dude happy by making my comments no more than PG-13. So, let's just say this. Roger Goodell is a #@%#(@(#! Further, he can #*@#(%! himself. Although I'm not sure that's actually possible. Anyway, I digress. The Packers are going to play angry and while the Saints are desperate, they haven't been able to stop anybody this year. Good luck with Aaron Rodgers, boys. Packers 100, Who Dat 21. I admire your restraint, Seabiscuit. And your command of the symbols on top of the QWERTY keyboard. Well done. As for the game, I think it comes down to defense. The Packers have quietly become a top 5 defense this year. Cedric Benson is getting integrated. I think it starts to come together this week. Packers win comfortably. Packers 34, Saints 19. Bear Down Chicago da Bearz (+3 1/2) vs. Dallas Cowboahs. You know what's funny? As I'm writing this, the Geritol Fan has music playing out of the computer. The song? Mr. Jones, by the Counting Crows. Sing along with me:
That guy needs a better outfit, but those sorts of critiques are Fearless Maria's job. Anyway, da Bearz are going to the house that Mr. Jones built. That would be Jerry Jones, the arrogant kajillioinaire who owns the Cowboys and thinks he's a GM. The Cowboys always have talent, but they can't ever seem to get their act together. It's been almost 20 years since they've been to the Super Bowl. So I have to laugh at Jerry. Ha ha ha! Now that I have that out of the way, let's get to the game. I hate both of these teams with a passion. Could they both lose? That would be best, but it won't happen. So, what will happen? Cowboahs 19, da Bearz 18. Will Jay Cutler make it through the game without another meltdown? That's the question. I say he does. Bears 24, Cowboys 20.
Well I'm glad the replacement refs are going back to the La Brea Tar Pits or wherever they came from. Good riddance. And Golden Tate? You'll get yours, pal. Ben out!
Remember how we were assured that a Barack Obama administration would put an end to domestic surveillance and other bad sins against the citizenry that George W. Bush loosed upon the nation?
As Jim Geraghty famously observed, all promises that Barack Obama makes have an expiration date. In this case, it turned out to be January 20, 2009:
Justice Department documents released today by the ACLU reveal that federal law enforcement agencies are increasingly monitoring Americans’ electronic communications, and doing so without warrants, sufficient oversight, or meaningful accountability.
The documents, handed over by the government only after months of litigation, are the attorney general’s 2010 and 2011 reports on the use of “pen register” and “trap and trace” surveillance powers. The reports show a dramatic increase in the use of these surveillance tools, which are used to gather information about telephone, email, and other Internet communications. The revelations underscore the importance of regulating and overseeing the government’s surveillance power. (Our original Freedom of Information Act request and our legal complaint are online.)
And here's a handy chart from the ACLU:
He knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sakes!
"As you know, this has to be ratified and we know very little about it, but we're excited to be back. And ready," referee Ed Hochuli told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. "And I think that's the most important message — that we're ready."
Hochuli is the cartoonish referee with the gun show arms who, to paraphrase a memorable comment I once heard from Vikings announcer Paul Allen, tells you how the watch is made when you ask him what time it is. It's amazing when you look forward to the return of someone like that. But here we are.
Here is how you will know if the NFL understands how badly it has screwed the pooch in recent weeks -- yesterday fines went out to a variety of people, including Patriots Coach Bill Belichick, for their complaints and actions during and following games on Sunday. If T. J. Lang of the Packers doesn't get fined for his comments, it will be a tacit confirmation that the NFL really understands what a disaster the last three weeks have been.
Maybe by mid-November, that is. John Hayward makes the relevant point:
There is no way to spin this, no way to pretty it up, no way to interpret it through any lens that would make Obama and his team look better. They willfully, aggressively, repeatedly lied to the American people about events in Benghazi. As Lake points out, as recently as last Sunday, Obama adviser Robert Gibbs claimed that the Administration narrative was still evolving due to new information.
And U.N. ambassador Susan Rice was marched onto every TV show in America to insist That Damned Video was the cause of all the “spontaneous” violence. When specifically asked about the Benghazi attack on Fox News, Rice stated, “This was not a pre-planned, pre-meditated attack. What happened initially was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent. People with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons – which, unfortunately, are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya – and that then spun out of control.”
That was a false statement. The Administration knew it was a false statement. What are we going to get from Obama apologists now – a load of bunk about how Susan Rice is an out-of-control loose cannon who speaks for no one but herself? How empty does that chair in the Oval Office have to get?
Just have to keep a lid on it until November 7. After that, we should have the results of the investigation. Patience, people.
I saw this piece in the Atlantic from Conor Freidersdorf and was thinking about using it for a blog post, but Brian has already covered the ground well. So go see Brian's piece, which not only discusses the particulars of Freidersdorf's article, but also the eternal problem of the Libertarian Party's willful commitment to ineffectiveness. A little taste:
Successful presidential candidates don't just materialize out of the ether. If the LP (or any third party) really wants to be a player in national politics, they have to take a longer view. No one is going to sue their way into presidential viability. They're going to have to work their way in from the ground up. To my mind, that means stop wasting time on symbolic presidential runs. For that matter, stop wasting time on symbolic governor and senate runs, too. What needs to happen is a focused, coordinated, and well-researched identification of cities, counties, and (maybe) congressional districts where the LP could become the second party. And with that, a focused and coordinated recruitment of good candidates to run in those races. Candidates that, if they actually won, might do a good job in the office to which they are elected. Candidates with an interest in actually governing, rather than just "getting the message out".
The first time I read Roger Simon was about 30 years ago. Back then, he was a columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times and was a standard-issue liberal. He would periodically issue columns called "Simon Says" in which he would make observations on the passing scene that tended to be, well, a little snarky. He would often suggest that things (or people) that annoyed him should be "beaten with sticks." Here's an example:
People who lick their fingers before turning the pages of magazines should be beaten with sticks.
You might think it's the soul of wit. Or not. But Simon has been doing this shtick for a very long time now. In fact, I remember reading his columns on the 3rd floor of Whitney Hall at Beloit College with Ace Commenter Rich/Dick back in the day, along with a few of our other ne'er-do-well floormates. That "beaten with sticks" thing was pretty damned funny to us at the time, but we'd often had a few highballs by the time we had received the paper.
So when I saw the latest Roger Simon piece in Politico, it didn't take long to figure out that he wasn't being serious. Especially this part:
“I hate to say this, but if Ryan wants to run for national office again, he’ll probably have to wash the stench of Romney off of him,” Craig Robinson, a former political director of the Republican Party of Iowa, told The New York Times on Sunday.
Coming from a resident of Iowa, a state where people are polite even to soybeans, this was a powerful condemnation of the Republican nominee.
Though Ryan had already decided to distance himself from the floundering Romney campaign, he now feels totally uninhibited. Reportedly, he has been marching around his campaign bus, saying things like, “If Stench calls, take a message” and “Tell Stench I’m having finger sandwiches with Peggy Noonan and will text him later.”
Satire isn't supposed to be something where you beat people with sticks. And whether you think Simon's faux reportage is amusing, it was clearly satire. I'll admit, I like the bit about eating finger sandwiches with Peggy Noonan, because that's snarky on a couple of levels.
We all believe what we want to believe, of course. And because a lot of people with bigger soapboxes than mine want to believe that Mitt Romney is d-e-d dead, they were happy to pass this little bit along as a scoop. The most notable hoaxee was none other than Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate:
Intrade still gives Romney a 27 percent chance of winning, not far off Nate Silver’s estimate. But if this Politico piece is to be believed, Paul Ryan has already bailed out:
Though Ryan had already decided to distance himself from the floundering Romney campaign, he now feels totally uninhibited. Reportedly, he has been marching around his campaign bus, saying things like, “If Stench calls, take a message” and “Tell Stench I’m having finger sandwiches with Peggy Noonan and will text him later.”
Can I say that even though I’m not exactly a fan of Mitt Romney’s, this is just bad behavior? You’re supposed to wait until it’s actually over before you do this kind of thing.
The strikeout appears there now, since Krugman's finally been tipped that he was had. He was hardly the only one, though.
Here's the thing -- there's plenty in the Simon piece that should tip even a slightly addled reader that the quote is fiction and intentionally so. Look at the setup -- Iowans are polite to soybeans? Perhaps Simon needed to embed a .wav file in his piece with a rimshot and an Ed McMahon-style "Hey-oooo!" to tip his audience, but if that's the case it's a pretty strong indictment of his readership's acumen.
I call bullshit. People don't read and read down into an article. Simon intentionally put a fake quote out there knowing it would be taken as real. You have to get 2/3 of the way into his piece to see the euthanize-cattle nudge. That's not the way people read these days.
Here you can see page 1. Who would click to page 2?
This was a deliberate attempt to pollute the public debate, to promote Simon's candidate. He would never fun with Obama like that. He kept his deniability, but he put it way down where no one would read. His writing doesn't merit the click to page 2.
I don't really buy that -- I think the click-through game is pretty well-established on most websites and that the websites really want you to click to page 2, because it increases their traffic numbers. And although Althouse's question is rhetorical, I'll tell you that I did click to page 2, where you see Simon dispense with the subtlety entirely:
A word about PowerPoint. PowerPoint was released by Microsoft in 1990 as a way to euthanize cattle using a method less cruel than hitting them over the head with iron mallets. After PETA successfully argued in court that PowerPoint actually was more cruel than iron mallets, the program was adopted by corporations for slide show presentations.
Presumably the iron mallets are a substitute for the sticks that Simon usually recommends. He's a very violent fellow, this Simon, and apparently he hasn't mellowed with age. But I digress.
To prevent further confusion, or being like Paul Krugman, I'd recommend the following:
When you see Roger Simon's byline, remember that he likes to make jokes. He's not necessarily that good at it, but he's always in there pitching.
When you read anything from Politico, it's safe to assume there's a chance it's unintentional satire.
There are a lot of people out on the internet who aren't necessarily telling you the truth. That might even include me. Caveat lector, always.
Toyota Motor is backing off from electric vehicles and focusing on hybrids, with plans to offer 21 new or redesigned hybrid models by 2015. It sells one electric vehicle now, the pricey Rav4 EV. It had planned to sell thousands of a second, small electric vehicle, but now it only intends to sell about 100 of them to to governments and “selected users in Japan and the U.S.” According to Reuters, Toyota says it “misread the market and the ability of still-emerging battery technology to meet consumer demands.”
"The current capabilities of electric vehicles do not meet society's needs, whether it may be the distance the cars can run, or the costs, or how it takes a long time to charge," said, [Takeshi] Uchiyamada, who spearheaded Toyota's development of the Prius hybrid in the 1990s.
Emphasis mine. Bubba can confirm this, but barring something extraordinary happening, 20 years from now, we'll still be talking about battery technology as "still-emerging." And 20 years after that.
From Los Angeles comes word of the latest ministrations from the Obama administration:
Federal authorities on Tuesday took legal action against 71 medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles County, part of an ongoing campaign to crack down on the establishments.
“Over the past several years, we have seen an explosion of commercial marijuana stores -– an explosion that is being driven by the massive profits associated with marijuana distribution,” said U.S. Atty. André Birotte Jr. in a statement. “As today’s operations make clear, the sale and distribution of marijuana violates federal law, and we intend to enforce the law. Even those stores not targeted today should understand that they cannot continue to profit in violation of the law.”
Marijuana is a lot less profitable when sold on the black market, of course. There's more -- see if you can figure out the problem:
Last year, California's four U.S. attorneys announced that they were taking aim at large-scale growers and dispensary owners who are raking in millions of dollars while falsely claiming that their medical marijuana operations comply with state law, which does not allow for-profit sales.
In the early days of President Obama's tenure, Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. announced that prosecutors would not target medical marijuana users and caregivers as long as they followed state laws. But as the risk of prosecution diminished, storefront dispensaries and enormous growing operations proliferated in California, often in brazen defiance of zoning laws and local bans.
So when did the federal government get into the business of enforcing zoning laws, or local bans? And which laws rule -- the federal laws or the local ones? No matter what you think of medical marijuana, and I think it's a dodge for a lot of people who just like smoking dope, the blurring of these distinctions is always problematic, in whatever realm it happens. It's no concern of mine if you are a person who likes smoking dope. Abusive federal power? Now that's a concern.
I'll have to rely on our California correspondents to tell us if these head shops medical marijuana dispensaries are actually causing problems for the commonweal, but if I were to make a guess, I'd assume they aren't, really. Perhaps if the store help wears a lab coat instead of a Phish concert t-shirt, it might seem a little more copacetic to the feds. By the way, does anyone even call these places head shops any more?
Yes, strange days indeed when I find myself quoting a member of the Minnesota Vikings. Take it away, Chris Kluwe:
Let's be clear: We're past the preseason now. These games really matter, and the Packers just lost one that counts for real, one that by all rights they should have won. As a divisional rival, it pains me to say this, but the Packers got royally horsebuggered on that last play, and this could have serious implications down the road when it comes to playoff seeds and homefield advantage.
One of the main points Commissioner Goodell has always harped on is protecting the shield: not letting anything tarnish the brand of the NFL. Commissioner, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but right now the shield is tarnishing faster than a sailor's virtue in a two-dollar whorehouse. Players see it; coaches see it; fans see it. These refs are not fit to stand in for the men you've locked out for what is increasingly looking like nothing more than simple greed—attempting to squeeze blood from a stone simply because you can. The NFL is America's No. 1 sport in part because everyone watching it knows that the players determine the outcome of a game, not the refs. As of right now, you're hurting business by putting a product out on the field that challenges that belief.
We all know that the regular refs sometimes get calls wrong, but never this egregiously, never this overtly. Sure, they may miss a pass interference or a holding call, but they always mark off the right yardage, and there's a trust that they'll get the vast majority of the calls right. Right now, there's no trust for the replacement refs. We've seen them make mistake after mistake, and it'll only get worse as players and coaches continue to push the envelope to see what they can get away with (extra timeouts are pretty awesome, not gonna lie).
Kluwe is 100% correct -- as much as I hate yesterday's result as a Packers fan, the larger question is the overall credibility of the league. The Vikings were screwed on Sunday when the replacement officials essentially gave Jim Harbaugh and the San Francisco 49ers the equivalent of two extra timeouts and a replay challenge they were not entitled to by rule. As it happened, the outcome of the game did not change. This time, it did. And if you think that Golden Tate of the Seattle Seahawks caught the touchdown pass at the end of the game, you need to see this still image:
One last thing -- the Packers were favored by 3.5 and were leading by 5 when this play happened. Millions of dollars changed hands as a result of what happened last night and I'd wager (ahem) that Roger Goodell and the league will be hearing about that part of it, too.
President Obama has established a substantial lead against Republican challenger Mitt Romney in Minnesota but remains under the critical 50 percent mark and trails Romney among independent voters, according to a Star Tribune Minnesota Poll.
It's always best to take any Star Tribune polling with more than a grain of salt, but this is actually quite surprising. If this president can't even get 50% of Minnesotans to support him, you have to wonder how well he's doing elsewhere. Especially when the poll has a D +13 split, which is especially amusing given that Obama only beat McCain by 10 points last time.
Don't get me wrong -- I'd be very surprised if Mitt Romney won Minnesota. The larger point is this -- the national polling continues to show essentially an even race and Barack Obama is not coming close to 50% right now. You can assume the president is a shoo-in if you want, but I wouldn't.
So we are left with this: Four Americans were killed in a premeditated terrorist attack on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, and for more than a week the Obama administration misled the country about what happened.
In the middle of an op-ed in favor of the Marriage Amendment, Katherine Kersten dropped the following tidbit:
Scholars are discovering that questioning the new orthodoxy may end their careers. At corporations like Target and General Mills, employees who believe children need a mother and father increasingly fear that making their views clear could threaten job advancement.
I worked at Target for the better part of the decade. If this is true, Target has changed a lot since I left.
Hi, I'm finally here. I know you've been pining for my butt-kicking analysis and overall mad picking skillz, but I've been busy watching my beloved Irondale Knights toying with hapless Fridley and my beloved Everton FC dispatching Swansea City.
Swansea? Dylan Thomas will be upset!
Dead poets don't really get upset, old dude. I'm pretty sure of that. But my adoring public will be if we don't get this HYYYYPPPPPE! rolling. So let's get to it. Watch me work!
Syracuse Boeheims (-1) vs. Minnesota Golden Gophers. So the old dude was telling me that Syracuse actually has a pretty great football history. Not that you'd know it lately, but apparently they were very good back in the day. Jim Brown is a Syracuse grad and so is Donovan McNabb. And if you consider that history, you wonder why the Gophers would schedule a team that could actually beat them in their non-conference schedule. Of course the Gophers have had no trouble in recent weeks, but now they go into battle without MarQueis "Touch of" Grey, their regular quarterback. In steps Max Shortell, who really ought to change his name. The dude is 6'6", so he's not short! He's actually a better passer than Grey, but he's a classic old-school pocket quarterback, kinda like Dan Marino or Terry Bradshaw. You don't see too many guys like that in the college game any more, but Shortell played very well last week against Western Michigan. So the Gophers should have no trouble. Gophers 21, Orange 17. I think this will be a little more high scoring game than that. Syracuse can score. Can the Gophers keep up? Syracuse 34, Gophers 31. UTEP Miners (+17 1/2) vs. Beloved Wisconsin Badgers. So the Badgers are favored by 17 1/2? Has Vegas been watching the Badgers lately? The only way the Badgers will beat the spread is if UTEP scores -3 points. Well, maybe it won't be that bad. The Badgers showed me something last week. It wasn't offense, mind you, but they did show me that the defense can do its job and help give some confidence to the offensive line. The line got a couple of good blocks, but the passing game was horrible. Jared Abbrederis is back this week, which should help out new quarterback Joel Stave (pronounced STAH-vay), who was saying "Stave Maria" a few times last week against Utah State. I think it goes better this week and keep in mind this: since the 2010 season, after a Badger loss in the regular season, Wisconsin has lost a grand total of one game. Badgers 24, UTEP 7. It's been stunning to see the mighty Badger offense revert to 1977 form in the last few weeks. I keep looking for Montee Ball and seeing Ira Matthews instead. I think the Badgers win this week, but they're gonna get drilled at Nebraska next week. Badgers 28, UTEP 17.
I disagree, Geritol Fan! I think the Badgers got their wakeup call and I'm standing by my prediction that the Badgers will be in the Big Ten Championship Game later this year. But I digress. . . .
San Francisco 49ers (-6 1/2) vs. Minnesota Vikings. So with a win on Sunday, the 49ers will win the NFC North. So far they've whipped our glorious Packers and the Motor City Kitties in succession, and now the big bad 49ers are coming to the Metrodome, or Mall of America Field, or whatever the heck they're calling that dump these days. It's the return of Randy Moss, this time wearing a 49ers uniform, and I'm interested to see what the reaction is. Here's a question -- why do Minnesota people love Moss and hate A. J. Pierzynski? I don't have an answer for that, but it's an interesting question. Anyway, back to the game. The Niners have looked dominant thus far and the Vikings have looked, well, ordinary. Does dominant beat ordinary? Ordinarily, yes. Vikes 28, Niners 14. Well, that's counter-intuitive. But that's what makes you the Benster. I guess I'm just a slave to conventional wisdom, but I don't see how the Vikings win this game. I think the 49ers can be beaten, but it won't be this week. 49ers 31, Vikings 17. St. Louis Timid Sheep (+7 1/2) vs. Bear Down Chicago da Bearz. Ram tough? Nope. So da Bearz have had 10 days to think about the butt-kicking they endured at Lambeau last week. And Jay Cutler has been thinking about apologizing for his behavior, but can't quite seem to bring himself to do it. The bigger question wasn't how Cutler got into people's faces. The real problem was Cutler getting the ball into the hands of Packer D-backs. Cutler has a tendency to play like a bum when he gets frustrated and that's what happened last week. The Rams will see this game as an opportunity and that is scary for da Bearz. Rams 49, da Bearz 0. That's no way to treat Gino, Seabiscuit! I agree with what you said about Cutler -- my sister has suggested that Cutler should be doing celebrity endorsements for Kleenex. But I think the Bears rebound this week. Bears 31, Rams 20. Glorious Green Bay Packers (-3 1/2) vs. Seattle Seabags. This is no fun, old dude. Russell Wilson is the quarterback of the Seahawks and we all love Russell Wilson around here. So will we be happy when Clay Mattews tries to screw him into the turf? I guess, but it's still going to be strange. As for the game, Seattle has no shot. Packers 77, Seattle 63. Uh, no. Two things -- Seattle plays defense and surprisingly enough, so does Green Bay. Seattle is an awfully tough place to win, too -- the fans there are absolutely nuts and it might be the loudest outdoor stadium in the league. Of course a few Aaron Rodgers touchdown passes might quiet things down. I think the Packers break out a little, but it won't be easy. Green Bay 35, Seattle 27.
Well, that's it for this week. And remember -- Everton is good. Also, I'm going to be out on Friday on assignment as I invade Benilde-St. Margaret's. Somebody has to do it, right? Ben out!
You might remember that I published a poem here last month. I'm not an accomplished poet, but I've long admired poetry and I wrote a lot of poems in my early adulthood. I hadn't seriously tried to write one in a long time, but in the past few years Mrs. D and I have renewed our friendship with an old college pal, Jefferson Hansen, who lives here in the Twin Cities and has been deeply involved in literary endeavors for most of his life. It's been a real blessing to have Jeff back in our lives -- he's a brilliant man with a great breadth of knowledge and wide-ranging interests. And as we've spent time with Jeff over the past few years, I've come to realize that while I've been an active blogger, I need to write poetry again. And so I am.
Jeff is the editor and curator of an online journal called AlteredScale.com. Alert readers will have noticed that AlteredScale.com and its companion blog have been featured on our recommended site list for a while now. Jeff was gracious enough to publish a poem that I wrote in May in the second edition of AlteredScale, which he published today. You can read my poem at the site if you are interested. The poem I submitted is called "Reboot" and you can find it in the first gallery of the journal.
If you go to read my poem, make sure to stay awhile and check out some of the other work that Jeff has published in the journal. A lot of the work, including poetry, prose and music, tends to be experimental. There's a lot there that you will find rewarding, I think. And you'll find more than a few things that might challenge more traditionalist notions. And that's good. Jeff explains his methodology in this way:
Ideally, a reader/viewer would first watch my short introductory video in order to understand my intent with this journal. Put simply, after the feature on Maria Damon, I arrange work in galleries with an eye toward playing with and off musical elements implicit in the works: harmony, disharmony, tone, atonality, tone-lock, rhythm, and so on. The galleries are long, so be sure to scroll all the way to a terminal point. Once there, you will find a link to the next gallery.
Jeff often looks at the world in a musical way. In fact, the name "Altered Scale" comes from a musical technique that's often used in jazz. An example of an altered scale would be as follows:
C D♭ E♭ F♭ G♭ A♭ B♭ C
Essentially, the notes in the scale are down a half a note from a straight C scale. The slight modification makes a big difference.
While this blog tends to be political, I often wish it weren't. I write about politics mostly because I think it's important to do so, but there are many things that are more enjoyable and ennobling than watching the two major political parties play Whack-A-Mole with one another. And I'm going to continue to write more poetry. I may publish it here, or I might pursue other avenues of publication. But I'm going to stay after it. Somehow I think a well-crafted poem might have more lasting impact than yet another polemic.
So Tim Pawlenty is going to Washington after all. As the chief lobbyist for the financial services industry, no less:
The Financial Services Roundtable announced Thursday that Pawlenty will become its new president and chief executive officer on November 1. Pawlenty adviser Brian McClung told The Associated Press that Pawlenty ruled out the races as he prepared to take the job heading the Wall Street lobbying group.
"With this new position, Governor Pawlenty is taking off the table running for U.S. Senate or governor in 2014," McClung said in an email. Pawlenty did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
What the means for Minnesota is a subject we'll return to at another time. What it means right now is more interesting, I think. If you believe the breathless reportage we've seen in recent weeks about the Romney campaign, you might assume that Pawlenty's decision is an example of a rat fleeing a sinking ship. T-Paw, as you'll recall, is one of the chief honchos in the Romney campaign and has been one of its most visible surrogates for the better part of a year now. So if you assume that Barack Obama is going to win and that the Democrats are going to, at a minimum, retain the Senate, it's passing strange that T-Paw would be the guy the money men would pick as their public face.
The downsides seem clearer than the upsides. If Romney wins, then Pawlenty, a close Romney friend who co-chaired the Republican candidate’s presidential campaign and was seriously considered for the veep slot, will have all the access he could want. But if Obama is reelected, Pawlenty isn’t likely to be the most appealing messenger to the Democrats’ administration.
But to put it in market lingo, the Financial Service Roundtable, observers say, is pricing that in. The past four years have made it clear that Democrats aren’t likely to sympathize with the Financial Services Roundtable, regardless of what happens on Election Day. But Congressional Republicans might.
I actually take it as a sign that the big money boys aren't so sure that Obama is going to win. If they thought Obama was going to win, it would have made a lot more sense to hire someone like Jennifer Granholm, the Democrat who was governor of Michigan at the same time T-Paw was at the helm here. And let's be honest; Granholm is whole lot easier on the eyes than T-Paw:
Yeah, I was on the Dating Game
Don't hate me because I'm beautiful
But that didn't happen, now did it? No matter what you think of Wall Street generally, and I don't think much of it, the people who run the various firms there aren't stupid. They understand the value of having the right people in Washington to represent their interests, especially since they operate in one of the most heavily regulated sectors of the economy.
Sending T-Paw as your messenger also sends a message about what they expect to see, and whom they expect to deal with, in Washington for the next few years.If you choose a public face that looks like Tim Pawlenty, there has to be a reason for it. Do you agree?
On the left, the stripes of dried blood left behind on the walls of the consulate in Benghazi, blood from the bleeding hands of the Americans killed in Benghazi last week, who were, it now appears, dragged off to their death. On the right, merch from the Obama shop, in which the 50 stars are replaced with the Obama logo. Only $35, I believe. Doesn't have to be blood money, though, as they take most major credit cards. Makes a lovely holiday gift.
It's Obama operative Jim Messina, looking like a guy with a carpeted panel van and a bag of lollipops, providing the latest way to honor your membership in the cult -- writing why you love Obama on your hands and posting it on social media. This innovative thinking dates back to at least 1955, of course:
At least this is just a movie
And it's already got it's well-deserved spot on Meme Generator. Here's mine:
