Benster and D Pick Your Games-----Divisional Round Edition

This weekend is one of the best weeks of football all year, because the top seeds in the NFL are coming out to protect home field against some surprising road teams.

Defend that turf from the opposition and from the ravages of HYYYYYPPPPE!

Old dude, you should know there's no defense for that, even your tub of Metamucil. The major question I have is over on the NFC side -- can the top 2 seeds actually win a home game, something that did not happen at all last weekend.

Well, I'm especially concerned about one road team.

You're getting ahead of yourself again, Geritol Fan. I'm trying to take this seriously and you've turned into a space potato. Try to dial it back a notch and don't give away the plotline, mkay? It is time to watch me work.

Kansas City Chiefs (+5) vs. New England PSI. With the X-Files coming back to television this year, maybe Mulder and Scully can find out what exactly happened to the PSI of those footballs. I mean, the Patriots fans believe that the NFL hates them, so the Hoodie changed the intro music to this:

As for the actual game, a lot of people forget that Kansas City made Tom Brady look super old last year in Arrowhead. A lot of people also forget that New England was a little casual in trying to get home field advantage, so that really concerns me. I don't know about you, but I kinda wonder if New England is a bit more lucky than good. Chiefs 31, PSI-Files 7.

Oh, they are lucky, but they can score. And they do. I would worry about the Chiefs as well, but until the Patriots are dethroned, you need to give them respect. And I do. Patriots 27, Chiefs 20.

Glorious Green Bay Packers (+7.5) vs. Arizona Cardinals. This game, quite frankly, is going to be a bit different than the previous trip the Packers took to Arizona. This time, the Packers come out to Arizona with a much healthier O-Line, and an offense that played very well against a good Redskins team in DC. Davante Adams is not going to go, but the advantage the Packers have is that they feel a lot more confident, and really have nothing to lose. I always thought that the bye was something that can be a bit of a double edge sword, because Arizona now has a 0-0 record. I do expect a tough game, but there is no reason why the Packers can't win. Packers 38, Raising Arizona 8.

Man, I want to agree with you, but I can't. The Packers will be better, but Arizona can attack you all over the field. The one thing worth noting is that the Seahawks may have cracked the code, but I'm not sure the Packers have the same sort of personnel. Watch the Packers pass rush -- if they start getting home on Carson Palmer, it could go the other way. But prudence dictates this pick. Cardinals 28, Packers 24.

Seattle Seahawks (+3) vs. Carolina Panthers. The Panthers may have failed in the chase for 16-0, but they still have all the goals in front of them. The problem is that Seattle is one of the luckiest teams I have seen. I swear that Russell made a deal with Jesus or something, because there is no way that they survive a hell of an effort by the Vikings. Seattle has pretty much owned Carolina in recent years, and with Beast Mode back, I expect that the results of Week 2 will be important, because the Packers have some demons to slay next week. Seattle 17, Carolina 9.

The Seahawks are lucky, all right. Their luck runs out in Charlotte, though. The Panthers are a good team and they'll be healthy and ready for the challenge. Panthers 21, Seahawks 17.

Pittsburgh Steelers (+4) vs. Denver Broncos. The last time that these teams played in the playoffs, Skip "Tebow" Bayless's BFF showed the world why he was so annoying. Tebow is now a talking head, and the Nationwide Pitchman is the quarterback. Peyton has a record of postseason failure that is epic and goes back to his college days as a Tennessee Volunteer. Big Ben, on the other hand is an experienced and very good quarterback. I expect Pittsburgh to win, though it won't be another street brawl. Pittsburgh 31, Denver 2.

Hmm. All road teams again? I think the Steelers could win, but Big Ben is hurting and he won't have Antonio Brown available. I don't think he has enough bullets against an excellent Denver defense. Low scoring = Denver. Broncos 20, Steelers 13. 

I do expect road teams to be bringing the HYYYYYPPE! I mean after all, somebody has to make history, right? Ben out!

Face the music

I've seen a lot of freakouts about this bit of nonsense:

Yeah, it's creepy, but so was this:

And they both need to step up their games to top this:

Debate

I saw a good chunk of it, but not all. Quick impressions:

• Trump is still winning. I'm hardly enamored of him, but he projects an aura of leadership that no one else on the stage can match. I don't know if that's what people will want in the end, but it has undeniable appeal. His deft use of 9-11 to deal with Cruz's "New York values" gaffe was the most masterful moment of this cycle. He saw the hanging curve ball and drove it into the third deck. I'm not so crazy about his apparent willingness to start a trade war, among other things.
• Cruz probably shut down the birther nonsense. He also took a lot of shots from the other candidates, especially Rubio, and didn't handle his exchange with Trump well, as mentioned above. He's in good shape.
• The more I see of Rubio, the less I like him. He's a talent, but he doesn't seem ready to be President.
• Christie is the only other guy on the stage who seems even remotely plausible. I still don't like him for a number of reasons, but he'll probably do well in New Hampshire, and we'll see after that.
• Carson needs to go home now. Bush should have gone home months ago, but he's still got a lot of other people's money left to waste. I'm not sure why Kasich was even on the stage, although it's nice to know that he knew Strom Thurmond, who ran for president in 1948. No word on whether he also knew Henry Wallace or Thomas Dewey.

They don't get it

I don't support Donald Trump, because I believe there are better candidates for president available. Having said that, it's now blindingly obvious that the energy behind the Trump campaign is causing the Republican establishment to have a meltdown. The latest example? The response to the Republican response to the State of the Union address, as delivered by Nikki Haley, governor of South Carolina:

The celebration by Republican elites was instant, and so was the backlash on the far right.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, the youthful daughter of Indian immigrants, had delivered a sunny and inclusive Republican response to President Obama’s State of the Union address that stood as an unmistakable counter to her party’s two presidential front-runners.

But Haley’s moment and its aftermath revealed an uncomfortable reality for GOP leaders. Even as they praised their chosen representative for condemning the polarizing politics fueling the rise of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, the currents of the 2016 race still churn against the establishment.

Haley might have intended to be sunny and inclusive, but it doesn't work that way when there's an insurrection going on. Compromise and getting along and playing nice? Screw that!

Speaking Tuesday night from Columbia, S.C., Haley urged Americans to resist the temptation “to follow the siren call of the angriest voices” and to make everyone in the country feel welcome. The remarks were widely viewed as a clear reference to Trump’s immigration-related proposals, which include a massive wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country.

Haley also said Democrats were not solely responsible for the failures in Washington. “There is more than enough blame to go around,” she said. “We, as Republicans, need to own that truth.”

Haley is right, but not for the reasons she thinks. If you actually listen to what the primary electorate is saying, you'll see that the anger isn't directed at the Republican leadership isn't for its divisiveness; rather, it's the sense that, on one initiative after another, the leadership has caved instead of fighting.

The smarter observers see that:

There doesn’t seem to be a plan for how to deal with Trump. They’re afraid,” said William J. Bennett, a top official in the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. “Instead of taking him on directly, they’re making vague, diffuse references.

“What’s worse,” he continued, “is that this leaves them in a position to be thumped by Trump. This is not the way he talks or campaigns, and he’ll hit them right back as fuzzy and weak.”

And he will. The party leadership wants harmony and good governance. I do, too. You can't really have both in an environment where the other side of the aisle is willing to offer goodies and will always outbid you. Trump is leading an insurrection because he understands the moment better than his competitors.

Paul Ryan doesn't get it:

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) selected Haley to deliver the party’s nationally televised response. Haley embodies the kind of party Ryan in particular is trying to build: even-tempered, reform-minded, pro-business and open to minorities.

You grow up and you calm down
You're working for the clampdown
You start wearing the blue and brown 
You're working for the clampdown

Issuing white papers on how you will reform something is one thing. Paul Ryan has a million plans. Do you suppose that, by being reasonable and even-tempered, you can actually change the behavior of the hive in Washington?

The people supporting Trump, and to a lesser extent his Menshevik frenemy Ted Cruz, don't buy it. The current path is filled undersecretaries to the undersecretary of the deputy undersecretary of the Ministry of Love. You can try to rearrange the furniture and put some fresh paint on the rotting structure -- that's the essence of Ryan's million plans. Have fun with that.

Let fury have the hour
Anger can be power
D'you know that you can use it?

They are coming to tear the playhouse down. It's going to be ugly.

Bummer

I didn't write about the special election in SD35, mostly because I live behind the iron curtain in SD41 and I'm only aware of one SD35 voter who regularly reads this feature. That reader is our friend Brad Carlson, who shares the disappointing news:

Two months ago the Republican delegates in SD 35 (of which I am one) voted to endorse activist (and, for purposes of full disclosure, my friend) Andy Aplikowski. However, Andy would have to overcome a GOP primary challenge from Jim Abeler, who served 16 years in the MN House before opting to run for U.S. Senate in 2014 (he was soundly defeated in that race's Republican primary).

Over the past several weeks I was asked by a number of my local political friends how I felt the campaign was progressing and if I had any sense of who would prevail. I always uttered the obvious retort by saying "It depends on turnout." That and the fact Abeler never had to win votes in Andover, which is a much more conservative part of the Senate District. If we can turn out enough people there to effectively offset purplish Anoka (Abeler's hometown, where he consistently dominated by 3 to 1 margins in prior elections), Andy might have a chance.

In the end, turnout in SD 35 was a paltry 10% of registered voters and Andy won ruby red Andover by a mere 3%.

Ballgame.

For the record, Abeler moves on as the Republican candidate in the special election February 9 thanks to a 61% to 39% win in the GOP primary. 

The party endorsement is often useless in Minnesota, especially since we have an open primary and the other party can mess with the results. That is likely what happened in SD35. Andy is a friend of mine as well and he would have made a great senator. You'll find no one who is more principled and enthusiastic and he would have fought for the right things. Abeler is a time server, at best, and also someone who has voted with the DFL at key junctures. I'm sure that Andy will find other ways to serve, as he always has. I don't know what Abeler will do, but I suspect it will only be intermittently useful to causes we hold dear.

Brotherly love

I'm not sure how to sort out the theological implications of this one:

This video shows the shocking moment a Buddhist monk was robbed as he bought lottery tickets at a gas station in Philadelphia.

The 61-year-old victim was purchasing tickets from a machine at a Sunoco store when a black man approached him and snatched his wallet, along with $350.

The video is at the link. There's more:

The thief is seen harassing the monk and as he turns his back to use the machine, the robber quickly grabs the Buddhist's wallet and makes for the exit.

Giving chase, the monk runs after the robber and catches up with him as he tries to get into his Silver Ford Mustang, which was parked out front. 

The monk grabs hold of the thief, but is thrown to the floor as the robber, who was wearing a dark blue jacket and a black and white baseball cap, tries to escape.

The video then shows him jumping into his car and making a hasty getaway as the monk watches in despair. 

Who robs a Buddhist monk, anyway? I can't imagine the bad karma involved.

Interesting times

Observation of the evening, from Ann Althouse:

I am contemplating the possibility that through some fancy footwork, the 2 men sitting behind Obama will be the 2 major party candidates for President next fall.

Stranger things could happen. And probably will.

Hey Hey, WIAA -- Tell Us What We're Allowed To Say -- UPDATE: Jay Bilas Has Some Helpful Suggestions

Comstockery disguised as sportsmanship, taken to a ridiculous level:

The Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association has banned high school students from chanting certain words and phrases at basketball games, and none of them are remotely close to being hurtful or inappropriate.

In an email sent out to students in December, which was obtained by the Post-Crescent, the WIAA banned “chants by student sections directed at opponents and/or opponents’ supporters that are clearly intended to disrespect.”

The following words were reportedly included as examples:

• “Fundamentals”
• “Sieve”
• “We can’t hear you”
• “Air ball”
• “You can’t do that”
• “There’s a net there”
• “Scoreboard”
• “Season’s over” (during tournament play)

So how ridiculous a list is that? You can't chant "air ball" when a kid for the other team throws one up? You can't taunt the opposing goalie with "sieve" when he (or she) lets a goal get past? And forbidding "you can't do that," usually heard when a kid on the other team gets called for a foul? Apparently, in Wisconsin in 2016, you can't do anything.

The text of the email itself sounds like a directive to straighten up and fly right:

Not wanting to restrict creativity or enjoyment, an enthusiastic and boisterous display of support for a school’s team is welcomed and encouraged at interscholastic events when directed in a positive manner. However, any action directed at opposing teams or their spectators with the intent to taunt, disrespect, distract or entice an unsporting behavior in response is not acceptable sportsmanship. Student groups, school administrators and event managers should take immediate steps to correct this unsporting behavior.

They don't want to restrict creativity or enjoyment, but they're prepared to do it for the greater good, you see.

Half the fun of being a high school student is seeing what you could get by with, especially when you are competing against a rival high school. There was a guy who played for one of our biggest rivals, Green Bay Premontre, named Pat Wong. He was an unbelievable long range shooter -- he would launch the ball from just about anywhere inside the half court line -- and, rumor had it, a bit of a stoner. So it should come as no surprise that when he and his Premontre teammates showed up in our gym for a basketball game, the chant "Wong Does Bongs" emanated from our student section. Wong didn't mind -- he started laughing when he heard the chant. Was it poor sportsmanship? I suppose. Did it matter? All these years later, not a bit. I assume we'd be put to death for that now.

I also remember picking the Benster up after a football game in which his beloved Irondale Knights beat a rival high school (Benilde-St. Margaret) on their homecoming weekend. I arrived just as the game was ending; I could hear the Irondale student section chanting "Happy Homecoming" with evident glee. I was confused until I looked at the scoreboard and realized that Irondale had just won the game. The Benilde kids looked a little glum, but so what? You have to learn to lose, too. And Benilde returned the favor to Irondale the next year. I don't remember if the Benilde fans chanted "Happy Homecoming" at Irondale or not, but it wouldn't have mattered.

Should we encourage good sportsmanship? Of course. This isn't how you do it.

UPDATE: ESPN analyst Jay Bilas noticed and got in some polite yet devastating trolling of the WIAA:

The clock operator appreciates such alerts

And this:

Seems like a reasonable request

And this one:

These fans are not, to my knowledge, chanting "Wong Does Bongs"

The refreshing beverages are always much appreciated.

Before I forget...

. . . the most impressive thing I saw this past weekend:

I'll kick all y'all's asses

Tougher than we'll ever be.

Football weekend

A few notes:

• First, the locals. I really try not to troll the Vikings and their fans. It is astonishing, really, how cruel their losses are. This one has to rank right up there. It was an awfully cold day yesterday and to lose the game on a chip shot field goal is particularly excruciating. The Vikings gave a good accounting on themselves on that frozen field yesterday and gave themselves a chance to win against a team that had crushed them only a month before. I don't think this season was a flash in the pan, either -- the Vikings should have a multiple-year window ahead of them where they will contend for a championship. That's all you can ask, really.
• After being missing for over half the season, a team that bore a strong resemblance to the Green Bay Packers played very well yesterday. The Packer offense moved the ball well, especially on the ground, and Aaron Rodgers had the spring back in his step. I've been worried that something is physically wrong with Rodgers all season; beyond the ineptitude of his teammates, he hasn't looked right, missing throws he would have made in previous seasons. The Packers have a tough assignment in the desert next weekend, but if they play at the level they showed yesterday against the Redskins, they will have a chance. Arizona is formidable, but not invincible.
• The Pittsburgh-Cincinnati game on Saturday night had a number of disgraceful moments. The cheap shot that Bengals linebacker Vontaze Burfict laid on Antonio Brown of the Steelers was a stupid play. When Ben Roethlisberger was being taken off in a cart, the Bengals fans were pelting him with debris. That struck me as particularly strange, as the fans we encountered at a Reds baseball game were gracious and exceptionally friendly. Emotion is baked into all sports and football in particular, but it got completely out of hand at Paul Brown Stadium. You used to see this sort of mayhem in the 1970s, but the league has made considerable efforts to bring the thugs to heel. It will be interesting to see how the NFL responds after this ugly event.

RIP, David Bowie

Very sad news -- he had just turned 69 years old. A major figure in the history of rock and roll. It's difficult to know where to begin with his recorded legacy, because he wrote and performed so many great songs. A few pop into my mind this morning:

And this one:

And this one, in full sneer:

And this one, in full despair:

I'm sure you have your favorites, too. RIP, David.

A good explanation

Mark Steyn went to a Trump rally in Vermont. As usual, his synopsis is spot-on. You should absolutely read the whole thing, but this passage is crucial:

~MESSAGE DISCIPLINE: In fairness, he is (or was) actually competing against Pataki, and still is (just about) against Rand Paul. But he also did a couple of minutes on Martin O'Malley. He'd been talking about the crowds he's been getting, and he'd said that when he goes back home his wife asks him how the speech went and whether anyone was there. Because the cameras stay directly focused on him and never show the audience. And he thought at first this was because they were fixed and hammered into place - until a protester starts yelling and then suddenly the cameras are twisting around like pretzels, no matter what corner of the room they're in. Anyway, at some point, he mused on a Martin O'Malley rally at which apparently only one person showed up. So O'Malley talked with him one on one for an hour, and at the end a reporter asked the guy whether he would be supporting O'Malley. And the fellow said no.

And we all laughed, as did Trump.

Now, short of the mullahs nuking Hillary in Chappaqua and the following day Kim Jong-Un nuking Bernie in Burlington, there is no conceivable scenario in which Trump will be facing off against Martin O'Malley. So talking about him is a complete waste of time - and Karl Rove says that campaigning is all about the efficient use of the dwindling amount of time you have this close to Iowa and New Hampshire. So doing ten minutes of knee-slappers on Martin O'Malley is ten minutes you could have used to talk about Social Security reform that you'll never get back.

Maybe Rove is right. But as a practical matter it's led to the stilted robotic artificiality of the eternally on-message candidate - which is one of the things that normal people hate about politics. And Trump's messages are so clear that he doesn't have to "stay on" them. People get them instantly: On Thursday he did a little bit of audience participation. "Who's going to pay for the wall?" And everyone yelled back, "Mexico!" He may appear to be totally undisciplined, yet everyone's got the message. Likewise, his line on an end to Muslim immigration "until we can figure out what the hell's going on" is actually a subtle and very artfully poised way of putting it that generates huge applause. Trump has such a natural talent for "message" that it frees up plenty of time to do ten minutes of Martin O'Malley shtick.

Emphasis mine. In contrast, consider this criticism of Trump from a bien pensant at Salon:

The point is that when a large portion of the electorate is fooled into adopting an ideology of ignorance, spaces open up for charlatans, frauds and demagogues to gain political power over the masses. This is precisely what we’ve seen with the rise of Trump in 2015, and it’s why he’s a symptom of the disease rather than a cause, as mentioned above. Indeed, according to a recent poll, Trump’s support base consists of the least educated Americans. As a Washington Post article put it, “Even when pollsters took race out of the equation — to the extent that that is possible since the Republican base is overwhelmingly white — and looked at all Republicans, the relationship between education and Trump support was pretty clear.”

This conclusion is consistent with a Boston Globe analysis that found that Trump talks at a fourth-grade level. And it fits with the observation that the more outrageous, harebrained, foolish, and asinine Trump’s claims — from John McCain not being a “war hero” to shutting down parts of the Internet to violating the Geneva Convention by killing terrorists’ families to temporarily keeping Muslims out of America — the more Trump’s poll numbers seem to rise. Holding beliefs that are properly tethered to reality via the best available evidence doesn’t matter much to the army of quasi-fascist conservatives who’ve been hypnotized by Trump’s shallow charisma.

Again, emphasis mine. The sneer about "talks at a fourth-grade level" demonstrates that the author of the piece, Phil Torres, is more committed to a world view than he is to understanding what's happening in the campaign. Trump is effective precisely because, as Steyn notes, his messages are easy to comprehend. Anyone who writes for a living should understand that reaching the largest possible audience is a good thing, especially if you are asking for someone's allegiance. Trump understands that the vote of someone who understands the world at a fourth-grade level has equal value to the vote of a Wharton grad. Perhaps more, if the voter with the fourth-grade understanding lives in an early primary state.

Note also that Trump was speaking in Vermont, a left enclave that is the home of Bernie Sanders. Back to Steyn:

When was the last time a GOP presidential candidate held (in the frantic run-up to Iowa and New Hampshire) an event in Vermont? Every fourth January, Republican campaigns are focused on the first caucus and the first primary states, as Bush, Rubio, Christie, Kasich, Huckabee, Fiorina et al are right now. But in fact the Green Mountain primary is on March 1st, and its delegates count as much as any other state's. In recent cycles, the American electoral system has diminished and degraded itself by retreating into turnout-model reductionism and seriously competing only over a handful of purple states. Even if he's only doing it as a massive head-fake, Trump understands the importance of symbolism: By going into Berniestan, he's saying he's going for every voter and he's happy to play down the other guy's half of the field.

No one has tried to be a national candidate on the Republican side since Ronald Reagan. Trump is not Reagan, yet it's important to remember that Reagan was known as The Great Communicator because of his ability to reach audiences where they were. Trump has the same skill set. He's going to be very difficult to beat.

Benster and D Pick Your Games-----Wild Card Weekend Edition

It is one of the best weekends of football all year this weekend. We have four interesting playoff games, and on Monday we will crown a national champion in college ball. Plus, both teams in the Upper Midwest are playing on Sunday.

It's a great combo. High stakes football all the way around.

I know that other weeks in sports are bigger, but I gotta love when there are meaningful games.

You don't even need to employ any HYYYYYYYYYPPPPE, right?

This week? Not as much. It's all baked in. Watch me work.

Kansas City Chiefs (-3.5) vs. Houston Texans. The Chiefs have not won a playoff game since the early 90's, and they would love to win down in Houston. Houston won a very soft AFC South and they have quarterback issues. The funny thing is that Houston has had a pretty good year in sports and will be led by a former Houston Cougar star, Case Keenum. However, Andy Reid is a veteran playoff coach and Alex Smith is a capable quarterback who was screwed over in San Francisco. I don't see Colin Kaepernick in the playoffs. By The Way, What is Right With The Chiefs 32, Texans 5.

If you've ever wondered what a Charcandrick was, you can find out in this game. Kansas City has been unbelievably hot in recent weeks and it's difficult to see this Texans team beating them. Chiefs 24, Texans 17.

Pittsburgh Steelers (-3) vs. Cincinnati Bengals. These teams are both divisional foes and they have been in the playoffs a lot this decade. Andy Dalton has to be wondering if this year is finally the year he wins a playoff game, but he is not playing. I do not think that AJ McCarron will have Eddie Lacy or Nick Saban to help him, and it will show. Pittsburgh 21, Cincy 0.

Perhaps that's the secret to Andy Dalton winning a playoff game -- just don't participate! Two good teams with fundamental flaws. I'm concerned about the Steelers having the ability to move the ball on the ground, since that sets up their ability to turn their fearsome passing game loose. I see it the other way. Bengals 27, Steelers 24.

Seattle Seachickens (-5.5) vs. Minnesota Vikings. As much as it pains me to say this, Minnesota did play well for most of the game last week and the Viking Nation should enjoy their division championship. They earned it. While I am sure that the Vikings are happy to get an outdoor playoff game before the new stadium opens in the fall, this might not be the opponent they wanted. Seattle smoked the Vikings on this very field earlier in the year, and they are a very dangerous team. This game is going to be a lot closer than most people think, and you know that the Vikings are going to be pumped. The problem is that they almost threw the game away in Green Bay last weekend, and that game took a lot out of them emotionally. Seachickens 32, Vikings 9.

It's cold up here. It's been worse, but it's cold. Cold tends to be an equalizer, so I expect this game to be close. Seattle is too good, though. Seahawks 28, Vikings 17.

Glorious Green Bay Packers (-1) vs. Washington Gridlocks. The Packers have been called out and the national media is saying that they have no chance. That is fine by me. Bottom line is that this is a new season, and everyone starts off with no stats and no record. Washington is a good team, but they played in a horrible, ugly travesty of a division. The Packers can win, but they need to just play well for four quarters. I also do think that the Vikings have not seen the last of them. Packers 23, Gridlocks 17.

The Redskins have improved, but they are suspect on defense. That gives the Packers a chance. The last time the Packers played a playoff game in Washington was in 1972. John Brockington, this one's for you. Packers 28, Redskins 24.

College Football Playoff National Championship Game: Alabama Crimson Tide (-7) vs. Clemson Tigers, at Glendale. I think you already know that most of America will be wanting to do the Dabo. I am sick and tired of hearing about the SEC and how they are so dominant. I kinda like Clemson because they have a very good team and they have yet to lose all year. Alabama is always well-coached, but they have to lose a title game sometime, right? Clemson 34, Alabama, -9000.

I always appreciate your subtlety. I don't like 'em either, but the way the Tide handled Sparty convinced me they are the real deal. Should be a fun game. Alabama 24, Clemson 21.

Yeah, I won't be welcome in the SEC tent after that pick. But it's just as well; they can't handle all the HYYYYYYYPPPPE! Ben out!

Housekeeping

A few tweaks to the appearance of the blog -- I typically like to change things up at the beginning of the year. I'll probably be playing with things a bit more in the coming days. Sometimes it's the right thing to do.

Also, fear not -- Benster and D will be up in the morning.

Keeping up appearances

It turns out that some of Germany's newest residents have some odd ideas about deportment around women, but that's not the problem, apparently. The problem is the reaction:

Ralf Jaeger, interior minister for North Rhine-Westphalia, said police had to “adjust” to the fact that groups of men had attacked women en masse.[ . . . ]

Mr Jaeger also warned that anti-immigrant groups were trying to use the attacks to stir up hatred against refugees.

“What happens on the right-wing platforms and in chatrooms is at least as awful as the acts of those assaulting the women,” he said. “This is poisoning the climate of our society.”

The invaluable Walter Russell Mead makes the salient observation:

So in the wake of a high-profile, mass attack on women by refugees, an independent Mayor, a SPD regional minister, and a CDU Chancellor have all come out in ways that seem to be at least as concerned—at least—with protecting liberal pieties as addressing popular concerns. It’s the backlash, not the actual attacks, that seems to most worry some of these centrist politicians.

And this is precisely the recipe for getting people to look to Orban-style populism. After all, if even terrorist attacks such as Paris and incidents against women, committed on a large scale, in Cologne cannot get the centrists to focus on popular concerns about immigration, a German voter might wonder, what ever will? Whereas the populists, whatever else might be said about them, do. Which means the choice may indeed come down to Orbanism or Merkelism. And in this environment, that’s not one the elites can necessarily count on winning.

Orban, in case you don't know, is Viktor Orban, the prime minister of Hungary, who has responded to the wave of migrants by building walls on his border. From what I know of Orban, he's a bad dude. I'm certain Angela Merkel is much nicer.

I'm wary of populists of all stripes, because they tend to be demagogues. I fully expect populists to continue to rise, however, because the elites don't believe in much other than themselves.

Griffey and Piazza to the Hall

The results are now in and Ken Griffey Jr. and Mike Piazza will be the Class of 2016 for the Baseball Hall of Fame. A few quick thoughts:

• Griffey's vote percentage of 99.3% is the highest ever. I suspect he reached that level because he was the anti-Bonds. He's probably one of the top 20 players of all time, so it was a no-brainer.
• Piazza made it after three previous attempts. He's certainly the greatest offensive catcher in history. Some people question whether he was on the juice, but there is no evidence of that. A deserving choice.
• Jeff Bagwell and Tim Raines fell just short of induction. I think both will go in next year, as there aren't any obvious new candidates coming on to the ballot for the 2017 class; the two best players in the next group are Ivan Rodriguez and Manny Ramirez, who are both implicated in using PEDs; the only other new candidate who might have a chance is Vladimir Guerrero, but I would take Bagwell or Raines over him.
• Trevor Hoffman started out well and is likely to gain induction within the next two years. Curt Schilling and Mike Mussina are both likely to make it soon as well. I like all of these players.
• I've taken up the cause of Alan Trammell many times, so I won't revisit it. I think he deserves to be in the HOF, as does his double-play partner Lou Whitaker, who barely got a sniff. Those Detroit Tigers teams of the 1980s were excellent and the Trammell-Whitaker combination is arguably the best ever, when you factor in quality and longevity. The Veterans' Committee has some work to do.

Here we go again

China is having problems again:

Hong Kong’s Hang Seng China Enterprises Index tumbled 4.2 percent to the lowest level since Oct. 6, 2011. Trading of shares and index futures in the mainland was halted by automatic circuit breakers from about 9:59 a.m. after the CSI 300 Index slid more than 7 percent. The People’s Bank of China cut its reference rate on Thursday for an eighth straight day, fueling concern that tepid economic growth is prompting authorities to guide the currency lower.

“The yuan’s depreciation has exceeded investors’ expectations,” said Wang Zheng, Shanghai-based chief investment officer at Jingxi Investment Management Co. “Investors are getting spooked by the declines, which will spur capital outflows.”

The yuan weakened 0.6 percent to 6.5938 per dollar at 4:20 p.m. in Shanghai. The currency rallied from early declines in offshore trading, strengthening 0.4 percent in Hong Kong amid speculation the central bank propped up the exchange rate after setting a weaker fixing that sent the currency tumbling.

Central planners assume they can control events. It never works that way. Hang on, folks.

Meanwhile, in the Hermit Kingdom

This just happened:

North Korea said Wednesday it had conducted a powerful hydrogen bomb test, a defiant and surprising move that, if confirmed, would be a huge jump in Pyongyang's quest to improve its still-limited nuclear arsenal. 

A television anchor said in a typically propaganda-heavy statement that the North had tested a "miniaturized" hydrogen bomb, elevating the country's "nuclear might to the next level" and providing it with a weapon to defend against the United States and its other enemies.

Defend, you say? Nope. I don't think so. Whatever they did, it registered 5.1 on the Richter Scale:

In the first indication of a possible test, the U.S. Geological Survey measured an earthquake Wednesday morning with a magnitude of 5.1. An official from the Korea Metrological Administration, South Korea's weather agency, said the agency believed the earthquake was caused artificially, based on an analysis of the seismic waves and because it originated 49 kilometers (30 miles) north of Kilju, the northeastern area where North Korea's main nuclear test site is located. The country conducted all three previous atomic detonations there.

We can worry about chimerical gun show loopholes all day long, but it's a sideshow. Pay attention to what's happening in the center ring, please.

But for others I put on a show

Bizarro World Smokey Robinson:

But when it comes down to fooling you, honey that's quite a different subject

We've seen this crap before, of course:

So if you want to know, how I really feel/Get the cameras rolling, get the action going

And it's bipartisan:

Now I taught the weeping willow how to cry

Will the Leader of the Free World's latest proposals move the needle on guns? Not really, but it does give an especially intrusive federal agency (BAFTE) a pretext to add staffing, which is always a goal in Washington.

If you like your kabuki moistened with tears, you can keep your kabuki moistened with tears.

Bring Out Your Dead Pool -- 2016

The results are in and it is time to recap the entries and entrants for the 2016 Dead Pool!

Our first contestant is Ace Commenter Brian:

Brian's Picks:
Fidel Castro
Billy Graham
Vince Neil (of Mötley Crüe fame)
Max von Sydow
Garrison Keillor
Gwyneth Paltrow

Comments: Brian carried over two picks (Castro and Graham) from the previous Dead Pool. Both are likely to go at any time. Brian has reported that he saw Neil on the Crüe farewell tour recently and that he didn't look too good, so perhaps a more permanent farewell might be in order. Keillor is a Minnesota institution who has looked a bit shaky as well. Brian's rationale for the Paltrow pick ("because you have to admit it would be kind of funny") rings true. It also would prevent the possibility of future duets with Huey Lewis, which ought to be avoided at all costs:

Overall grade: Solid. Very solid indeed.

Next up, the man who needs no further introduction -- Gino!

Gino's Picks:
Bob Dole
George H. W. Bush
Lamar Odom
Pete Rose
Tommy Lasorda
Any Kardashian chick, "just for the ratings."

Comments: Gino carried over Dole and the elder President Bush, who are both the dictionary definition of doddering these days. I think his pick of addled ex-NBA star Odom is a savvy choice, as Odom seems to favor copious pharmaceutical consumption and hookers, rarely a winning combination for a healthy life. Rose and Lasorda, while baseball icons, are both pretty long in the tooth and certainly ripe for ripening. And the strategic ambiguity of the Kardashian chicks opens up a variety of possibilities. It would also be a welcome result for the public airwaves, which are altogether too filled with the trashy exploits of that particular clan.

Overall grade: Cagey. A definite contender.

Next up, west central Iowa's favorite pastor and poet, W. B. Picklesworth:

Picklesworth's Picks:
Nancy Reagan
Herman Wouk
Prince Phillip
Kirk Douglas
Harper Lee
Barack Obama

Comments: Picklesworth is new to the competition, so he had no holdover picks. Mrs. Reagan is quite frail and Kirk Douglas is nearly 100 years old, so these seem like sensible picks. Herman Wouk is 100 years old and it's quite possible that a stiff breeze could fell the author of "The Winds of War." We heard from Harper Lee last year with great fanfare, as her book "Go Set a Watchman" finally saw publication, although we didn't see much of Lee herself. She's apparently been infirm for years. While Prince Phillip seems strapping enough, he's 94. While the pick of the sitting president might raise eyebrows, we can assure the Secret Service that we wish the Leader of the Free World continued health and, based on today's bravura performance, a box of Charmin.

You don't know what the sound is, darlin'/It's the sound of my tears fallin'
Or is it the rain? You don't know

Overall grade: Solid, but unexpectedly damp.

Next up, the king of HYYYYYYYPPPPPE himself, the Benster:

Benster's Picks:

Virginia McCaskey

Pope Benedict XVI

Ruth Bader Ginsberg

Duchess of Cornwall

Keith Jackson

Chip Kelly

Comments: Benster carried over Pope Benedict and the notorious RBG, who are both frail but surprisingly feisty. For my money, the savviest pick on Benster's board is Virginia McCaskey, the daughter of Papa Bear Halas and owner of the the Chicago Bears. Mrs. McCaskey may be alive, but she's been forced to die at least a little bit nearly every Sunday in the fall for years now. For those keeping score at home, the Duchess of Cornwall is better known as Camilla Parker-Bowles, the consort of Prince Charles. Our panel seems a bit hostile to royalty, no? Keith Jackson is the great retired voice of college football and, while not as old as some of the other entrants, certainly is now approaching the end zone. The Chip Kelly pick may seem outlandish, but that's how the Benster rolls.

Overall grade: Longshots, but you discount the Benster's skills at your peril.

Next up, high school superstar Fearless Maria:

Fearless Maria's Picks:
Queen Elizabeth II
Betty White
Donald Sutherland
Craig Sager
Beverly Cleary

Gordon Ramsey ("from a severe nervous mental breakdown or vocal cord rupture")

Comments: Fearless Maria is a first-time contestant, so her picks are all new. She leads off with yet another prognostication of demise for the royal family, making this blog post the equivalent of Oliver Cromwell. Children's author Cleary is 99 years old, so that is a good, conventional pick, while White and Sutherland are certainly getting up there as well. Sager, the NBA sideline reporter best known for his questionable taste in clothing, has recovered from a recent bout of cancer, but unfortunately cancer can come back. And let's face it -- Ramsey is liable to blow at any minute.

Overall grade: Intriguing, with serious upside.

Finally, it's my turn:

Mr. D's Picks:
John Kundla
Bobby Doerr (the old Red Sox player and the oldest living member of the Baseball HOF)
Tom Brokaw
Chuck Berry
Johnny Manziel
Donald Trump

Comments: I carried over John Kundla, the ancient coach of the Minneapolis Lakers. Doerr was a teammate of Ted Williams and has not indicated that he is interested in going cryogenic like Teddy Ballgame. Brokaw has been in ill health. Johnny Manziel is a remarkably self-destructive fellow who is in the process of flushing his NFL career. Chuck Berry is due to turn 90 this year, believe it or not. As for Trump, well, again we remind the Secret Service that we wish him continued health, but I have a hunch.

Overall grade (from Fearless Maria): In a stunning turn of events, Mr. D has surprised us all by drafting a surprisingly boring list of picks again this year. Not that I would recall from past years, but I have my hunches, just as he has his hunches about his most interesting pick, Donald Trump. Overall, the motives behind each pick exhibit great intelligence and clever utilization of "Deadoralive.com." We will see who kicks the can, or in Johnny Manziel's case, thinks the can is a blunt and tries to smoke it, or in Trump's case, mocks its IQ and issues a Twitter rant. It's sure to be an eventful Dead Pool. May the odds be ever in your favor, unless you're gonna die!

Thanks, Maria. A very tidy summation indeed! Good luck to all our contestants and we'll keep track of things on the blog.