Thursday, October 30, 2003
A Difficult Vote on Iraq
A while back, I blogged on the Administration's request for $87 billion to support the armed forces and rebuild Iraq. Since then, there has been much debate on the request and little has changed on the ground in Iraq. International support has not noticeably increased (although a UN resolution has passed), there is an attack or two every day, and no one from the Administration has given a timetable for exit or a cohesive strategy for the transition of power to the Iraqis. Indeed, the most coherent statement has been the leaked memo from Donald Rumsfeld calling the road ahead in Iraq, a long hard slog.
That said, I can see little alternative besides approving W.'s request for money. I still believe that all of the following are true:
1. We would be better served if the money was funded by reducing the ludicrous tax cuts passed over the past few years.
2. We would be better served if the Administration went hat in hand to the U.N. and agreed to turn over considerable authority to the international body.
3. We would be better served if the Iraqis were loaned some of the money for their rebuilding.
4. The request points out how much $87 billion could do here at home if it were allocated wisely.
5. We should have never been in this position in the first place and wouldn't be if we had international support for the invasion.
However the decision before Congress is whether to provide the money given that the Administration appears to be unwilling to compromise on any of the above issues (or admit they were wrong on the last one). I applaud Congressional efforts to try and force Bush to articulate a strategy for exit and to get more international support. Unfortunately, given the lack of power that opponents of the Administration have, these attempts appear doomed to failure.
That leaves the question as $87 billion up or down? The best response on this has been given by the largely ignored Presidential candidate (even by me) Carol Moseley Braun who basically said, "we broke it, we need to fix it." Given the choice in front of Congress, I think the right thing to do is approve the money. Exercise careful oversight over its disbursement if possible, continue to investigate the deceptions that led us into war, but approve the money and at the very least lets try to create some good out of this, a democratic Iraq. A long hard slog now lies ahead.
That said, I can see little alternative besides approving W.'s request for money. I still believe that all of the following are true:
1. We would be better served if the money was funded by reducing the ludicrous tax cuts passed over the past few years.
2. We would be better served if the Administration went hat in hand to the U.N. and agreed to turn over considerable authority to the international body.
3. We would be better served if the Iraqis were loaned some of the money for their rebuilding.
4. The request points out how much $87 billion could do here at home if it were allocated wisely.
5. We should have never been in this position in the first place and wouldn't be if we had international support for the invasion.
However the decision before Congress is whether to provide the money given that the Administration appears to be unwilling to compromise on any of the above issues (or admit they were wrong on the last one). I applaud Congressional efforts to try and force Bush to articulate a strategy for exit and to get more international support. Unfortunately, given the lack of power that opponents of the Administration have, these attempts appear doomed to failure.
That leaves the question as $87 billion up or down? The best response on this has been given by the largely ignored Presidential candidate (even by me) Carol Moseley Braun who basically said, "we broke it, we need to fix it." Given the choice in front of Congress, I think the right thing to do is approve the money. Exercise careful oversight over its disbursement if possible, continue to investigate the deceptions that led us into war, but approve the money and at the very least lets try to create some good out of this, a democratic Iraq. A long hard slog now lies ahead.
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
NBA picks
Well I've had my three days off to relax after the World Series. Now its time to start paying attention to basketball. Actually unless you are involved with fantasy sports, you don't need to pay attention for a while since the NBA regular season is not very meaningful. Still there are compelling storylines this year on the court (I'm not going to get into the storylines off the court or more accurately in the courthouse). Here are my picks for that oft-ignored annual rite, the NBA regular season.
East.
1. New Jersey -- Even if Zo doesn't stay healthy, Kidd should guide them to the best record in the conference.
2. Detroit -- Getting better every year. By the end of the year Darko will be a solid contributor.
3. New Orleans -- Fragile (Mashburn is already hurt) but talented.
4. Philadelphia -- Never underestimate the Answer.
5. Indiana -- The loss of Miller will hurt but the loss of Isiah will help.
6. Orlando -- Approaching Minnesota's record for first round exits. Another one this year.
7. Chicago -- I hate to admit it but Krause put together quite a team. The next power in the conference.
8. New York -- I always pick them as high as I can rationally defend. This pick assumes 50 games from McDyess.
non-playoff teams
9. Toronto -- So many injuries last year. Still I'm not sold on Carter leading them to the playoffs.
10. Boston -- With "Toine" gone, Pierce will lead the league in scoring but won't lead the C's to the playoffs.
11. Cleveland -- LeBron won't be Rookie of the Year but will be damn good.
12. Washington -- Could surprise if Eddie Jordan can teach them to share the ball with each other.
13. Miami -- What did Pat Riley know and when did he know it?
14. Atlanta -- Now in their fourth decade of NBA obscurity.
15. Milwaukee -- George Karl should be prosecuted for what he did to this team.
Playoffs: Its a bit silly to make picks now but hopefully no one will remember them. Look for a Detroit-New Jersey rematch in the finals but with Darko improving and Prince, Okur, and Billups as Prime Time Players, the Pistons will have enough to prevail this year.
West
(two sets of picks, one if Kobe is guilty, one if he is not).
Kobe not guilty
1. Los Angeles -- I hesitated after the Shaq-Kobe feud this week but there is just too much talent here. The trial will keep them from breaking the wins record but put them down for 65 w's.
2. San Antonio -- May be better than last year.
3. Dallas -- Allas is what they should be called. (no D) But they will be fun.
4. Sacramento -- May 2004, the window for Sacramento closes.
5. Minnesota -- My new favorite team in the west.
6. Phoenix -- I think Amare takes a step backwards keeping this team running in place.
7. Houston -- Van Gundy will need a third threat to make them a title contender.
8. Portland -- Mo Cheeks should be considered a political prisoner.
non playoff teams
9. Denver -- The rising team in the west. One year away from the playoffs, two from the top tier.
10. Seattle -- There will be a Seattle Dallas game this year with a 140-130 score.
11. Memphis -- Any truth to the rumor that Jerry West sent David Stern a map showing Memphis is in the east?
12. LA Clippers -- Tried going with good players last year. Now reverting to previous strategy.
13. Utah -- Welcome to the lottery, folks. They'll probably have to explain the rules to Utah.
14. Golden State -- Lost their best two players and now the progress they made last year.
Kobe Guilty
Move LA down to 3rd.
Playoffs. If Kobe is acquitted the only interest will be how many games do the Lakers lose as they hit their stride in May. Not many. LA over San Antonio in the finals but Minnesota and possibly Phoenix pull off first round upsets. If Kobe is guilty San Antonio over LA in the finals.
East.
1. New Jersey -- Even if Zo doesn't stay healthy, Kidd should guide them to the best record in the conference.
2. Detroit -- Getting better every year. By the end of the year Darko will be a solid contributor.
3. New Orleans -- Fragile (Mashburn is already hurt) but talented.
4. Philadelphia -- Never underestimate the Answer.
5. Indiana -- The loss of Miller will hurt but the loss of Isiah will help.
6. Orlando -- Approaching Minnesota's record for first round exits. Another one this year.
7. Chicago -- I hate to admit it but Krause put together quite a team. The next power in the conference.
8. New York -- I always pick them as high as I can rationally defend. This pick assumes 50 games from McDyess.
non-playoff teams
9. Toronto -- So many injuries last year. Still I'm not sold on Carter leading them to the playoffs.
10. Boston -- With "Toine" gone, Pierce will lead the league in scoring but won't lead the C's to the playoffs.
11. Cleveland -- LeBron won't be Rookie of the Year but will be damn good.
12. Washington -- Could surprise if Eddie Jordan can teach them to share the ball with each other.
13. Miami -- What did Pat Riley know and when did he know it?
14. Atlanta -- Now in their fourth decade of NBA obscurity.
15. Milwaukee -- George Karl should be prosecuted for what he did to this team.
Playoffs: Its a bit silly to make picks now but hopefully no one will remember them. Look for a Detroit-New Jersey rematch in the finals but with Darko improving and Prince, Okur, and Billups as Prime Time Players, the Pistons will have enough to prevail this year.
West
(two sets of picks, one if Kobe is guilty, one if he is not).
Kobe not guilty
1. Los Angeles -- I hesitated after the Shaq-Kobe feud this week but there is just too much talent here. The trial will keep them from breaking the wins record but put them down for 65 w's.
2. San Antonio -- May be better than last year.
3. Dallas -- Allas is what they should be called. (no D) But they will be fun.
4. Sacramento -- May 2004, the window for Sacramento closes.
5. Minnesota -- My new favorite team in the west.
6. Phoenix -- I think Amare takes a step backwards keeping this team running in place.
7. Houston -- Van Gundy will need a third threat to make them a title contender.
8. Portland -- Mo Cheeks should be considered a political prisoner.
non playoff teams
9. Denver -- The rising team in the west. One year away from the playoffs, two from the top tier.
10. Seattle -- There will be a Seattle Dallas game this year with a 140-130 score.
11. Memphis -- Any truth to the rumor that Jerry West sent David Stern a map showing Memphis is in the east?
12. LA Clippers -- Tried going with good players last year. Now reverting to previous strategy.
13. Utah -- Welcome to the lottery, folks. They'll probably have to explain the rules to Utah.
14. Golden State -- Lost their best two players and now the progress they made last year.
Kobe Guilty
Move LA down to 3rd.
Playoffs. If Kobe is acquitted the only interest will be how many games do the Lakers lose as they hit their stride in May. Not many. LA over San Antonio in the finals but Minnesota and possibly Phoenix pull off first round upsets. If Kobe is guilty San Antonio over LA in the finals.
Sunday, October 26, 2003
Democratic Debate #5
Tonight's Observations:
-- I'm not sure whether it was the setting or something in the air but the candidates seemed more passionate and more articulate than they had in past debates.
-- For the first time, there was a candidate that clearly impressed me. I thought Lieberman's performance was by far the best of any candidate in any debate yet. He combined a clear articulation of a consistent set of views with the charm and likability that made him an asset in the 2000 election. His tax proposal is the best thing to come from any candidate since the early days of the campaign. All that said, I still have problems with his hawkishness and religiosity and think he has a huge hill to climb in the primaries.
-- Clark was on the defensive and did not look very impressive. Dean, Lieberman, and Kerry all went after him. I fear that before long, he may not be worth attacking.
-- Dean is comfortable and almost cocky in the drivers seat. While this could still be his undoing, the crowded field works to his advantage. His moment of truth will come when the first primaries decide who his key opponent and he has to go toe to toe with that person. Hopefully he won't be cocky then.
-- My current standings:
My preferences: Dean, Edwards, Lieberman, Kerry, Clark, Gephardt, the rest.
Likelihood of winning: Dean, Gephardt, Kerry, Clark, Edwards, Lieberman, the rest.
-- I'm not sure whether it was the setting or something in the air but the candidates seemed more passionate and more articulate than they had in past debates.
-- For the first time, there was a candidate that clearly impressed me. I thought Lieberman's performance was by far the best of any candidate in any debate yet. He combined a clear articulation of a consistent set of views with the charm and likability that made him an asset in the 2000 election. His tax proposal is the best thing to come from any candidate since the early days of the campaign. All that said, I still have problems with his hawkishness and religiosity and think he has a huge hill to climb in the primaries.
-- Clark was on the defensive and did not look very impressive. Dean, Lieberman, and Kerry all went after him. I fear that before long, he may not be worth attacking.
-- Dean is comfortable and almost cocky in the drivers seat. While this could still be his undoing, the crowded field works to his advantage. His moment of truth will come when the first primaries decide who his key opponent and he has to go toe to toe with that person. Hopefully he won't be cocky then.
-- My current standings:
My preferences: Dean, Edwards, Lieberman, Kerry, Clark, Gephardt, the rest.
Likelihood of winning: Dean, Gephardt, Kerry, Clark, Edwards, Lieberman, the rest.
Friday, October 24, 2003
Politics and when life begins and ends.
I have always considered myself pro-choice. Similarly, I have always believed that if an individual had clearly expressed a position on not being kept alive on life support, that wish should be respected. That said, I find myself agreeing with Jeb Bush's decision to keep Terry Schiavo alive, and at least sympathizing with the attempts to outlaw partial birth abortions.
On the Florida case, it appears to me anything but clear. You have medical experts on one side saying that Schiavo will never improve and is in a vegetative state, you have others saying she can improve and at least has some cognition about what is going on around her. You have her husband saying she had not wanted to be kept alive in this manner and her parents saying the opposite as well as making allegations about the husband's motives.
I know that numerous courts have heard this case and presumably the judges heard far more evidence than those of us who read the popular press. That said, it seems almost inexcusable to me, that when there is this much disagreement, not to err on the side of life. If there was medical unanimity and/or consistent views from her loved ones, then we would have a different case. As it is, I do not understand how any judge could find for removing Schiavo's feeding tube. Kudos to Governor Bush for ordering it reinserted this week.
On partial birth abortion, we see the huge problems with the debate over abortion in this country. Most people do not sympathize with either of the extreme positions on the issue yet more than on any other issue, it is the extreme views that dominate the debate. A well structured bill banning partial birth abortions but allowing doctors leeway to protect the health of the mother would garner vast support from the American public, including me. However the bill that passed Congress this week does not make any exceptions and as such, is worthy of scorn. While the pro-choice movement uses slippery slope arguments to oppose any restrictions on aboriton, the pro-life movement cannot stand to win on an issue where most of the American public is in sympathy with it without trying to go too far.
Ironically both of the decisions this week are likely to be temporary. Courts are unlikely to allow a legislative reversal of a court decision to stand in Florida. The partial-birth bill because it allows no exceptions for maternal health, will probably be reversed by the Supreme Court as they reversed a similar bill passed by the State of Nebraska.
Issues such as these need to be thought about and decided with great thought and deliberation. However in acting quickly this week, Bush and the Florida legislature probably did the right thing, while the 11 months it took to pass a partial birth bill resulted in a product that missed the opportunity to do the right thing.
On the Florida case, it appears to me anything but clear. You have medical experts on one side saying that Schiavo will never improve and is in a vegetative state, you have others saying she can improve and at least has some cognition about what is going on around her. You have her husband saying she had not wanted to be kept alive in this manner and her parents saying the opposite as well as making allegations about the husband's motives.
I know that numerous courts have heard this case and presumably the judges heard far more evidence than those of us who read the popular press. That said, it seems almost inexcusable to me, that when there is this much disagreement, not to err on the side of life. If there was medical unanimity and/or consistent views from her loved ones, then we would have a different case. As it is, I do not understand how any judge could find for removing Schiavo's feeding tube. Kudos to Governor Bush for ordering it reinserted this week.
On partial birth abortion, we see the huge problems with the debate over abortion in this country. Most people do not sympathize with either of the extreme positions on the issue yet more than on any other issue, it is the extreme views that dominate the debate. A well structured bill banning partial birth abortions but allowing doctors leeway to protect the health of the mother would garner vast support from the American public, including me. However the bill that passed Congress this week does not make any exceptions and as such, is worthy of scorn. While the pro-choice movement uses slippery slope arguments to oppose any restrictions on aboriton, the pro-life movement cannot stand to win on an issue where most of the American public is in sympathy with it without trying to go too far.
Ironically both of the decisions this week are likely to be temporary. Courts are unlikely to allow a legislative reversal of a court decision to stand in Florida. The partial-birth bill because it allows no exceptions for maternal health, will probably be reversed by the Supreme Court as they reversed a similar bill passed by the State of Nebraska.
Issues such as these need to be thought about and decided with great thought and deliberation. However in acting quickly this week, Bush and the Florida legislature probably did the right thing, while the 11 months it took to pass a partial birth bill resulted in a product that missed the opportunity to do the right thing.
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
Easterbrook and Mahathir Mohamad
A furor has erupted in the blogger community (I don't think I am yet part of the blogger community, I'm just vaguely aware of its existence through Howard Kurtz's Washington Post column) over a recent blog by Gregg Easterbrook. In a blog (on the new republic's website) decrying the violence of the movie Kill Bill and Hollywood in general, Easterbrook had the following to say about Disney executives,
Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts.
I've always a big fan of Easterbrook and admired his take on many issues, particularly environmental policy. He is smart enough to realize that the above sentences are deeply offensive. Discussing Jews and the worship of profit particularly in the context of Hollywood studio heads raises ugly stereotypes that the hopeful among us had thought we had moved beyond.
Easterbrook was fired by ESPN.com, where he also has a column, and all traces of his online column there have been obliterated. Should Easterbrook be punished for his words? Should we think less of him as a result of a deeply offensive couple of sentences? His apology (also appearing in his blog) was relatively convincing to me. In addition, the number of prominent Jews who have stuck up for him as an open minded and fair person is impressive and worth heeding. In my mind, he deserves a second chance but it will be with a wary eye that I read his future work and it will be a long time before the sentences above will be forgotten.
Part of the reason such language is dangerous is evidence by another few sentences uttered this past week. The leader of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad, said before a gathering of Muslim leaders that "The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million, but today the Jews rule the world by proxy: They get others to fight and die for them." When the leader of a country begins to stereotype a group as running the world, the language in question goes from an academic debate to something that can have dangerous real world implications. Jewish people having too much power was one of many reasons given to legitimize anti-semitism in previous generations.
Mohamad's apology, in direct contrast to Easterbrook's, makes matters worse. While saying he was trying to motivate Muslims, he said the uproar over his comments demonstrated the Jewish world control. In the wake of the Palestinian crisis and Israel's repressive response to it, anti-semitism appears to be on the rise. It is not outrageous to fear that it could be used to justify horrible actions. Fair minded columnists and bloggers like Gregg Easterbrook need to be particularly careful about their language as a result, and the world must be quick to condemn demagogues like Mahathir Mohamad and make clear that intolerance and racism no matter who expresses them are unacceptable to the world community.
Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts.
I've always a big fan of Easterbrook and admired his take on many issues, particularly environmental policy. He is smart enough to realize that the above sentences are deeply offensive. Discussing Jews and the worship of profit particularly in the context of Hollywood studio heads raises ugly stereotypes that the hopeful among us had thought we had moved beyond.
Easterbrook was fired by ESPN.com, where he also has a column, and all traces of his online column there have been obliterated. Should Easterbrook be punished for his words? Should we think less of him as a result of a deeply offensive couple of sentences? His apology (also appearing in his blog) was relatively convincing to me. In addition, the number of prominent Jews who have stuck up for him as an open minded and fair person is impressive and worth heeding. In my mind, he deserves a second chance but it will be with a wary eye that I read his future work and it will be a long time before the sentences above will be forgotten.
Part of the reason such language is dangerous is evidence by another few sentences uttered this past week. The leader of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad, said before a gathering of Muslim leaders that "The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million, but today the Jews rule the world by proxy: They get others to fight and die for them." When the leader of a country begins to stereotype a group as running the world, the language in question goes from an academic debate to something that can have dangerous real world implications. Jewish people having too much power was one of many reasons given to legitimize anti-semitism in previous generations.
Mohamad's apology, in direct contrast to Easterbrook's, makes matters worse. While saying he was trying to motivate Muslims, he said the uproar over his comments demonstrated the Jewish world control. In the wake of the Palestinian crisis and Israel's repressive response to it, anti-semitism appears to be on the rise. It is not outrageous to fear that it could be used to justify horrible actions. Fair minded columnists and bloggers like Gregg Easterbrook need to be particularly careful about their language as a result, and the world must be quick to condemn demagogues like Mahathir Mohamad and make clear that intolerance and racism no matter who expresses them are unacceptable to the world community.
Saturday, October 18, 2003
World Series (and a few final thoughts on the ALCS)
Yankees vs. Marlins.
People have compared the Marlins to the Angels of last year as a hot team with the bats to wear down the Yankees staff. But the Marlins run differential is nowhere near that of the Angels. They are a much better team than I gave them credit for with a few weeks left in the season. Its a solid lineup up and down and a good bullpen. However, the rotation outside of Beckett is slumping and tired and as good as the lineup is, it comes nowhere near the Red Sox lineup that the Yankees just beat. The Marlins best bet is to steal one of the first two games while both teams are still tired, have Beckett dominate game 3, and get the Yankees thinking that they need three in a row to avoid Beckett in game 7. I'm betting that the Yankees win two slugfests at Yankee Stadium and go on to take the Series in 5.
Yankees vs. Red Sox (post mortem)
Thursday night was one of the most incredible baseball watching experiences I've ever had. Yes my Yankees came through but we can't deny that Grady Little handed the Yankees the series by leaving Pedro in. Yes, it is possible that we would have broken loose against Embree but the odds were so much lower than against a tired Pedro. Little talked about how Pedro won big games all season, but all season he restricted Pedro to low pitch counts and/or seven innings. A thoroughly inexplicable decision.
As readers know, I'm a big believer of rational analysis particularly as it applies to baseball. However between the Sox meltdown and the fan reaching for a foul ball in the Cubs series, one almost has to think something supernatural is at work. Maybe it was the ghost of the Babe whispering in Grady Little's ear to leave Pedro in. Or maybe it was the weight of history that made a carefree bunch of hitters weaken as the innings wore on Thursday night. Whatever it was, I'm grateful for it.
As I said at the start of the series, these two teams were extremely even and they played that way throughout the series. They played 26 games and the Yanks won 14. I still think Pedro is a goon and Manny is a great hitting moron but there is no doubt that this was a hell of a team. If the Boston press allows Epstein and James to continue to make decisions then the Red Sox are going to be very good for a long time. I'm just hoping that if the Babe can help us one or two more times in the next few years (nothing dramatic, maybe a key injury or another bad managerial decision here or there) then the Boston media will run the SABRmeticians out of town and I'll be able to relax again. If not, we may have some more great 26 game series in the years ahead.
People have compared the Marlins to the Angels of last year as a hot team with the bats to wear down the Yankees staff. But the Marlins run differential is nowhere near that of the Angels. They are a much better team than I gave them credit for with a few weeks left in the season. Its a solid lineup up and down and a good bullpen. However, the rotation outside of Beckett is slumping and tired and as good as the lineup is, it comes nowhere near the Red Sox lineup that the Yankees just beat. The Marlins best bet is to steal one of the first two games while both teams are still tired, have Beckett dominate game 3, and get the Yankees thinking that they need three in a row to avoid Beckett in game 7. I'm betting that the Yankees win two slugfests at Yankee Stadium and go on to take the Series in 5.
Yankees vs. Red Sox (post mortem)
Thursday night was one of the most incredible baseball watching experiences I've ever had. Yes my Yankees came through but we can't deny that Grady Little handed the Yankees the series by leaving Pedro in. Yes, it is possible that we would have broken loose against Embree but the odds were so much lower than against a tired Pedro. Little talked about how Pedro won big games all season, but all season he restricted Pedro to low pitch counts and/or seven innings. A thoroughly inexplicable decision.
As readers know, I'm a big believer of rational analysis particularly as it applies to baseball. However between the Sox meltdown and the fan reaching for a foul ball in the Cubs series, one almost has to think something supernatural is at work. Maybe it was the ghost of the Babe whispering in Grady Little's ear to leave Pedro in. Or maybe it was the weight of history that made a carefree bunch of hitters weaken as the innings wore on Thursday night. Whatever it was, I'm grateful for it.
As I said at the start of the series, these two teams were extremely even and they played that way throughout the series. They played 26 games and the Yanks won 14. I still think Pedro is a goon and Manny is a great hitting moron but there is no doubt that this was a hell of a team. If the Boston press allows Epstein and James to continue to make decisions then the Red Sox are going to be very good for a long time. I'm just hoping that if the Babe can help us one or two more times in the next few years (nothing dramatic, maybe a key injury or another bad managerial decision here or there) then the Boston media will run the SABRmeticians out of town and I'll be able to relax again. If not, we may have some more great 26 game series in the years ahead.
Friday, October 17, 2003
Democratic Debate #4 (a week delayed)
I finally got around to watching last week's Democratic Presidential debate in Phoenix (due to the Yankees Red Sox series on which I will blog tomorrow). It is becoming increasingly striking to me, how in a crowded field the candidates are struggling to position themselves both as attractive to primary voters (which involves posturing to the left) and as potential winning candidates (which involves moving to the center. Each major candidate's attempt to portray him or herself and some key opponents said a great deal about where they fall and who they perceive as significant threats.
Kucinich, Moseley Braun, and Sharpton: All three are to the left of the field and as are proud of it. Kucinich attacked Dean and Gephardt the serious candidates who appeal to the left to try and ensure he is seen as the only true socialist voice.
Gephardt: He is the next leftmost candidate. He is attacking Dean on Medicare and Social Security because like Kucinich, he feels that Dean has gotten a free ride from the party's left wing and that he (Gephardt) should be the logical union/antiwar candidate. The battle between he and Dean in Iowa should determine who carries that mantle for the balance of the campaign.
Edwards: He gets increasingly polished with each subsequent debate. I think he is right in the middle of the field which may be why he is having trouble distinguishing himself. Of course if he is running for vice-president, its not a bad place to be.
Kerry: He wants to be seen as a centrist but not too conservative. So he joins with Gephardt and attacks Dean from the left (on Medicare and Soc. Sec.) and he joins with Lieberman to attack Clark from the left (on the war). Meanwhile he resists repealing the middle class tax cuts to appeal to the center, and in doing so attacks Dean and Gephardt from the right. Its a very fine needle to thread and it leaves Kerry struggling to articulate a clear philosophy and sounding hypocritical at times. I think he is in trouble, although I would advise him to move left temporarily since his most serious threats are all to the right of him.
Dean: He has run a brilliant left-right strategy and has all the other candidates struggling to expose him as a partisan of one side or the other. His campaign started out on the left by opposing the war securing the love of the anti-war movement. This allowed him to move to the right by discussing his record as a moderate governor. His only attack (besides his defensive ones) was on Clark who poses a threat both as a fellow outsider and as an electable centrist.
Lieberman: Until Clark's entrance the Senator from Connecticut was the most conservative candidate in the field. That is why he had the harshest attack on Clark, he needs to discredit him as a Republican or he finds it hard to distinguish himself. If Dean and Clark both start convincing voters they are centrist enough to beat Bush, Lieberman is through. There is not much room left for him.
Clark: Heck, he may be a Republican. He is probably the furthest right in the field but it is unclear until we know more about his policies. As such, it doesn't behoove him to attack much yet. He can run on the outsider/electability/moderate platform and hope his credibility isn't hurt too much by the attacks from Lieberman and Dean to whom he poses the greatest threat.
Kucinich, Moseley Braun, and Sharpton: All three are to the left of the field and as are proud of it. Kucinich attacked Dean and Gephardt the serious candidates who appeal to the left to try and ensure he is seen as the only true socialist voice.
Gephardt: He is the next leftmost candidate. He is attacking Dean on Medicare and Social Security because like Kucinich, he feels that Dean has gotten a free ride from the party's left wing and that he (Gephardt) should be the logical union/antiwar candidate. The battle between he and Dean in Iowa should determine who carries that mantle for the balance of the campaign.
Edwards: He gets increasingly polished with each subsequent debate. I think he is right in the middle of the field which may be why he is having trouble distinguishing himself. Of course if he is running for vice-president, its not a bad place to be.
Kerry: He wants to be seen as a centrist but not too conservative. So he joins with Gephardt and attacks Dean from the left (on Medicare and Soc. Sec.) and he joins with Lieberman to attack Clark from the left (on the war). Meanwhile he resists repealing the middle class tax cuts to appeal to the center, and in doing so attacks Dean and Gephardt from the right. Its a very fine needle to thread and it leaves Kerry struggling to articulate a clear philosophy and sounding hypocritical at times. I think he is in trouble, although I would advise him to move left temporarily since his most serious threats are all to the right of him.
Dean: He has run a brilliant left-right strategy and has all the other candidates struggling to expose him as a partisan of one side or the other. His campaign started out on the left by opposing the war securing the love of the anti-war movement. This allowed him to move to the right by discussing his record as a moderate governor. His only attack (besides his defensive ones) was on Clark who poses a threat both as a fellow outsider and as an electable centrist.
Lieberman: Until Clark's entrance the Senator from Connecticut was the most conservative candidate in the field. That is why he had the harshest attack on Clark, he needs to discredit him as a Republican or he finds it hard to distinguish himself. If Dean and Clark both start convincing voters they are centrist enough to beat Bush, Lieberman is through. There is not much room left for him.
Clark: Heck, he may be a Republican. He is probably the furthest right in the field but it is unclear until we know more about his policies. As such, it doesn't behoove him to attack much yet. He can run on the outsider/electability/moderate platform and hope his credibility isn't hurt too much by the attacks from Lieberman and Dean to whom he poses the greatest threat.
Wednesday, October 15, 2003
The Costs of Regulation
I am venturing for the first time in this blog into my area of specialization. My career at the Office of Management and Budget and my current research both involved questions of how government produces the regulations which govern so much of our lives. In particular I am interested in the debate over the role of cost-benefit analysis in producing these regulations.
The fiercest advocates of cost-benefit analysis rely on principles of microeconomics and argue that if the government cannot improve upon the market outcomes (i.e. if there is no market failure) then the government should not be interfering with the market. Cost-benefit analysis is the method by which we can determine whether government interventions in the marketplace (for example by requiring firms to pollute less or requiring doctors to keep patient information confidential) are making things better or worse.
The opponents of cost-benefit analysis say that it is inherently biased against government intervention for a variety of reasons. It undervalues saving human lives and improving the environment because the market cannot successfully evaluate the true values of these benefits. It also undervalues benefits in the future by discounting them according to these opponents.
Prompting me to write today is a fascinating op-ed in the Washington Post yesterday by Bill Reilly, EPA Administrator under George H.W. Bush (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21852-2003Oct13.html). Reilly, citing a report produced by my former office, notes that the benefits of environmental regulations have far outweighed their costs. He goes on to argue that the costs of regulations have been overestimated making the case for environmental regulation even stronger.
The Reilly argument along with the data in the recent OMB report both take a great deal of wind out of the sails of opponents of cost-benefit analysis. If analysis is so biased against regulation, why has so much regulation resulted in net-benefits? The answer is that well done analysis will often show that regulation is justified. Reilly's second contention, that costs are routinely overestimated is much more controversial and I won't address here. The key point that I took away from the article is that supporters of regulation would be wise to embrace analysis because it can make the case for regulation much more convincing than an argument that economic principles should be ignored in regulatory decisionmaking.
This is not to argue that every decision should be made according to a strict cost-benefit test. The way cost-benefit analysis is currently used is as an aid to decisionmakers, giving them full information about the tradeoffs involved in policy decisions. This is its proper role. It allows policymakers to better understand the consequences of their decisions. Elected officials can then use this information in combination with their values and political concerns to make decisions. Without analysis, we are left much more to the uninformed whims of our elected officials.
The fiercest advocates of cost-benefit analysis rely on principles of microeconomics and argue that if the government cannot improve upon the market outcomes (i.e. if there is no market failure) then the government should not be interfering with the market. Cost-benefit analysis is the method by which we can determine whether government interventions in the marketplace (for example by requiring firms to pollute less or requiring doctors to keep patient information confidential) are making things better or worse.
The opponents of cost-benefit analysis say that it is inherently biased against government intervention for a variety of reasons. It undervalues saving human lives and improving the environment because the market cannot successfully evaluate the true values of these benefits. It also undervalues benefits in the future by discounting them according to these opponents.
Prompting me to write today is a fascinating op-ed in the Washington Post yesterday by Bill Reilly, EPA Administrator under George H.W. Bush (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21852-2003Oct13.html). Reilly, citing a report produced by my former office, notes that the benefits of environmental regulations have far outweighed their costs. He goes on to argue that the costs of regulations have been overestimated making the case for environmental regulation even stronger.
The Reilly argument along with the data in the recent OMB report both take a great deal of wind out of the sails of opponents of cost-benefit analysis. If analysis is so biased against regulation, why has so much regulation resulted in net-benefits? The answer is that well done analysis will often show that regulation is justified. Reilly's second contention, that costs are routinely overestimated is much more controversial and I won't address here. The key point that I took away from the article is that supporters of regulation would be wise to embrace analysis because it can make the case for regulation much more convincing than an argument that economic principles should be ignored in regulatory decisionmaking.
This is not to argue that every decision should be made according to a strict cost-benefit test. The way cost-benefit analysis is currently used is as an aid to decisionmakers, giving them full information about the tradeoffs involved in policy decisions. This is its proper role. It allows policymakers to better understand the consequences of their decisions. Elected officials can then use this information in combination with their values and political concerns to make decisions. Without analysis, we are left much more to the uninformed whims of our elected officials.
Monday, October 13, 2003
Moneyball
I finally finished reading Michael Lewis' Moneyball, the story of Billy Beane and the Oakland A's. It is a fantastic book for baseball fans, rabid or casual. One hopes that the story it tells, will eventually be seen as one of the sport on the precipice of huge change. What Beane has done over the past four years in Oakland, is nothing short of remarkable. He took a franchise which is regularly among the lowest in revenues and turned it into a powerhouse that is now an annual postseason participant.
I grew up reading the Bill James Baseball Abstracts every summer, as is true of many of the characters in the book. It says a great deal about baseball in particular and organizations in general that the revolutionary ideas contained in these bestselling books were either resisted or ignored for 20 years. It becomes more of a challenge to accept firms as rational profit maximizers after seeing how baseball team after baseball team ignored information that could help it. The A's are the first team to fully adopt the James way of looking at baseball questions and the results are self-evident.
It is a particularly important time to praise the A's and their leadership now, after they were eliminated in the first round of the playoffs for the fourth straight year. Critic after critic cites their inability to play "small ball" as a reason for their multiple eliminations. Many of these critics are baseball announcers (and former players) who only display their ignorance with such claims. Three of the four times they were eliminated the A's were matched up with big market teams, the Yankees, and the Red Sox.
Furthermore, the biggest factor in determining who wins a short series, as the book points out, is luck. Unlike the regular season, application of rules and statistical averages, will not determine who prevails. Why is the NCAA tournament so exciting? Because if you played it 10 times, you would most likely have 9 or 10 different champions. The baseball playoffs are not so random, but still can turn on minute bad decisions. If Jeremy Giambi had slid in 2001 or Eric Byrnes had gone back to touch home plate this year, nobody would be talking about small ball. If the A's keep making the playoffs, as Rob Neyer on espn.com notes, they will win eventually.
The biggest challenge facing Beane and the A's ironically is their own success and the success of Moneyball. While baseball owners are notoriously thick, even they recognize and know to ape success. This year, Toronto and Boston hired general managers steeped in SABRmetrics and Boston has already seen the results. As more teams slowly adopt these methods, the Scott Hattebergs and Chad Bradfords will become more costly and Beane and Paul DePodesta will have to find new advantages for the low budget A's. They probably have a window of a few more years before too many other teams catch up with them.
(Interestingly, the Yankees never discuss the SABRmetric philosophy but many of their moves seem to indicate its adoption.)
I grew up reading the Bill James Baseball Abstracts every summer, as is true of many of the characters in the book. It says a great deal about baseball in particular and organizations in general that the revolutionary ideas contained in these bestselling books were either resisted or ignored for 20 years. It becomes more of a challenge to accept firms as rational profit maximizers after seeing how baseball team after baseball team ignored information that could help it. The A's are the first team to fully adopt the James way of looking at baseball questions and the results are self-evident.
It is a particularly important time to praise the A's and their leadership now, after they were eliminated in the first round of the playoffs for the fourth straight year. Critic after critic cites their inability to play "small ball" as a reason for their multiple eliminations. Many of these critics are baseball announcers (and former players) who only display their ignorance with such claims. Three of the four times they were eliminated the A's were matched up with big market teams, the Yankees, and the Red Sox.
Furthermore, the biggest factor in determining who wins a short series, as the book points out, is luck. Unlike the regular season, application of rules and statistical averages, will not determine who prevails. Why is the NCAA tournament so exciting? Because if you played it 10 times, you would most likely have 9 or 10 different champions. The baseball playoffs are not so random, but still can turn on minute bad decisions. If Jeremy Giambi had slid in 2001 or Eric Byrnes had gone back to touch home plate this year, nobody would be talking about small ball. If the A's keep making the playoffs, as Rob Neyer on espn.com notes, they will win eventually.
The biggest challenge facing Beane and the A's ironically is their own success and the success of Moneyball. While baseball owners are notoriously thick, even they recognize and know to ape success. This year, Toronto and Boston hired general managers steeped in SABRmetrics and Boston has already seen the results. As more teams slowly adopt these methods, the Scott Hattebergs and Chad Bradfords will become more costly and Beane and Paul DePodesta will have to find new advantages for the low budget A's. They probably have a window of a few more years before too many other teams catch up with them.
(Interestingly, the Yankees never discuss the SABRmetric philosophy but many of their moves seem to indicate its adoption.)
Saturday, October 11, 2003
Pedro Must Go
I consider myself a reasonable, if passionate fan. That said, I was furious after the 4th inning of today's third game between the Yankees and the Red Sox. In the span of about 20 minutes Pedro Martinez:
1. Threw deliberately at Karim Garcia (even the MLB shills, the Fox announcers thought so).
2. Made a motion noting that he would throw at Posda's head.
3. Threw 72 year old Don Zimmer to the ground. Yes, Zimmer may have been rushing at Pedro, but how hard would it have been to step out of the way.
Any of these actions should have been enough to get Pedro tossed. Presumably because the umpires wanted to not decide the game with an ejection, none of them resulted in an ejection.
First of all, when will anyone realize that not taking an action such as ejecting a player does as much to decide a game as taking that action. Pedro was virtually unhittable from that point forward and if the Red Sox could have mustered any offense, the lack of an ejection would have given them the game.
That point aside, what the hell were the umpires thinking. Pedro has been a headhunter since his days in Montreal and Major League Baseball has given him no reason to stop. He is a goon, more comparable to the idiot groundskeeper who jumped into the Yankees bullpen than the great pitchers to whom he's often compared. Its not easy to make Roger Clemens look like a class act but Pedro succeeded today (Manny should have been ejected as well for overreacting to a pitch an inch off the plate but this was by far the lesser of the umpires' offenses).
If Bud Selig had any guts, he would suspend Pedro for the rest of the series for his actions. Unfortunately the words Selig and guts appear in the same sentence very rarely (usually sentences like, "If Selig had guts . . ." or "Selig has no guts"). It is hard for me to believe that he would risk the profits of a game 7 between Pedro and Clemens for the sake of doing the right thing.
I take solace in that baseball karma has an odd way of working. With the hiring of Theo Epstein and Bill James, it finally appeared as if the Red Sox had a shot at ending the Curse of the Bambino in the next few years. If one believes in either justice or karma, the cursing of Pedro will lead to another 85 years before the Olde Towne Team has a shot at a title.
(I was rooting hard before this incident but now I want the Yankees to win in 5, in Fenway).
1. Threw deliberately at Karim Garcia (even the MLB shills, the Fox announcers thought so).
2. Made a motion noting that he would throw at Posda's head.
3. Threw 72 year old Don Zimmer to the ground. Yes, Zimmer may have been rushing at Pedro, but how hard would it have been to step out of the way.
Any of these actions should have been enough to get Pedro tossed. Presumably because the umpires wanted to not decide the game with an ejection, none of them resulted in an ejection.
First of all, when will anyone realize that not taking an action such as ejecting a player does as much to decide a game as taking that action. Pedro was virtually unhittable from that point forward and if the Red Sox could have mustered any offense, the lack of an ejection would have given them the game.
That point aside, what the hell were the umpires thinking. Pedro has been a headhunter since his days in Montreal and Major League Baseball has given him no reason to stop. He is a goon, more comparable to the idiot groundskeeper who jumped into the Yankees bullpen than the great pitchers to whom he's often compared. Its not easy to make Roger Clemens look like a class act but Pedro succeeded today (Manny should have been ejected as well for overreacting to a pitch an inch off the plate but this was by far the lesser of the umpires' offenses).
If Bud Selig had any guts, he would suspend Pedro for the rest of the series for his actions. Unfortunately the words Selig and guts appear in the same sentence very rarely (usually sentences like, "If Selig had guts . . ." or "Selig has no guts"). It is hard for me to believe that he would risk the profits of a game 7 between Pedro and Clemens for the sake of doing the right thing.
I take solace in that baseball karma has an odd way of working. With the hiring of Theo Epstein and Bill James, it finally appeared as if the Red Sox had a shot at ending the Curse of the Bambino in the next few years. If one believes in either justice or karma, the cursing of Pedro will lead to another 85 years before the Olde Towne Team has a shot at a title.
(I was rooting hard before this incident but now I want the Yankees to win in 5, in Fenway).
Friday, October 10, 2003
Groping vs. Cheating
There has been a great deal of discussion this week over whether we should think of the groping allegations against Arnold differently than the Lewinsky affair that nearly brought down President Clinton. Much of the pieces discussing this subject accuse those who treat these two incidents differently of hypocrisy (or give spirited defenses of why they are different).
Make no mistake, there are clear differences between the two. On the one hand, Clinton did not use physical force on Lewinsky or any of his "victims" (unless the most severe unsubstantiated charges are to be believed). On the other hand, as far as we know, none of Schwarzenegger's incidents involved cheating on his spouse (in the biblical sense), they occurred while he was a private citizen, and he has not lied under oath about them.
Many of those defending one of these rakes while attacking the other cite one or more of the above factors as a reason for their position (see Andrew Sullivan, Maureen Dowd, or EJ Dionne for some high profile examples). This would be reasonable if one didn't have the feeling that many of the same columnists and bloggers would be citing the other factors and defending the other rake if their underlying political views were different.
What do I think about these actions? Clearly I would not want either the former President or the soon to be California Governor dating my daughter or sister (if I had one of either). But does it affect my view of them as elected leaders? To answer positively to that question, their actions would either have to make me believe they were morally unfit for office or that it revealed something about their character that would make them compromise their ability to meet the requirements of their office. If I had to rank the level of offense each action gave to me using these criteria, it would be Clinton's lying under oath, followed by Schwarzenegger's actions, followed by Clinton's serial cheating.
None of the these pass the "morally unfit for office test" although the serial cheating comes closest. If I didn't believe that Clinton never should have had to testify about the affair in the first place, then the lying would cross that threshhold. On the second factor, Clinton's lying led to serious doubts about whether the public could trust him. Given that trust is a key part of the compact between governed and leaders, this probably would have been enough for me to vote against him if he ran again (although I wouldn't have voted for Bush, so I'm not sure what I would have done). Similarly Schwarzenegger's actions raise concerns about his respect for women, his ability to work with women, and his ability to speak for them. These concerns would also be enough for me to not vote for him.
Ironically if Clinton had given Schwarzenegger's response he would have escaped impeachment. As I said in discussing the CIA leak, we tend to forgive a multitude of sins, but not lying about them.
(By the way, to Schwarzenegger's credit he spoke out against the impeachment when it was happening).
Make no mistake, there are clear differences between the two. On the one hand, Clinton did not use physical force on Lewinsky or any of his "victims" (unless the most severe unsubstantiated charges are to be believed). On the other hand, as far as we know, none of Schwarzenegger's incidents involved cheating on his spouse (in the biblical sense), they occurred while he was a private citizen, and he has not lied under oath about them.
Many of those defending one of these rakes while attacking the other cite one or more of the above factors as a reason for their position (see Andrew Sullivan, Maureen Dowd, or EJ Dionne for some high profile examples). This would be reasonable if one didn't have the feeling that many of the same columnists and bloggers would be citing the other factors and defending the other rake if their underlying political views were different.
What do I think about these actions? Clearly I would not want either the former President or the soon to be California Governor dating my daughter or sister (if I had one of either). But does it affect my view of them as elected leaders? To answer positively to that question, their actions would either have to make me believe they were morally unfit for office or that it revealed something about their character that would make them compromise their ability to meet the requirements of their office. If I had to rank the level of offense each action gave to me using these criteria, it would be Clinton's lying under oath, followed by Schwarzenegger's actions, followed by Clinton's serial cheating.
None of the these pass the "morally unfit for office test" although the serial cheating comes closest. If I didn't believe that Clinton never should have had to testify about the affair in the first place, then the lying would cross that threshhold. On the second factor, Clinton's lying led to serious doubts about whether the public could trust him. Given that trust is a key part of the compact between governed and leaders, this probably would have been enough for me to vote against him if he ran again (although I wouldn't have voted for Bush, so I'm not sure what I would have done). Similarly Schwarzenegger's actions raise concerns about his respect for women, his ability to work with women, and his ability to speak for them. These concerns would also be enough for me to not vote for him.
Ironically if Clinton had given Schwarzenegger's response he would have escaped impeachment. As I said in discussing the CIA leak, we tend to forgive a multitude of sins, but not lying about them.
(By the way, to Schwarzenegger's credit he spoke out against the impeachment when it was happening).
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
California Craziness -- Ahhrnold Wins
It's hard to believe that it actually happened. In the space of less than a year, the good citizens of California have re-elected their governor, petitioned for his recall, and elected an inexperienced actor in his place. If Arnold had showed up at a Hollywood studio asking to make a movie with this plot he would have been told that it strained credibility more than the Terminator movies (or Twins).
I've already written that I think the recall is a disaster for California politics. There is now a very real danger that California will be in a state of perpetual gubernatorial elections and at the very least any governor will be afraid to do anything unpopular, particularly raise taxes. Until and unless the state constitution is amended, governors will govern perpetually looking over their shoulder. There are plenty of rich Californians who can afford to bankroll a recall effort. My prediction is that Arianna Huffington will bankroll the effort to recall Arnold (excuse me, I mean Governor Schwarzenegger) within a year.
What does this mean for California and national politics. What little we know of Arnold's substantive politics does not seem too bad (socially liberal, fiscally conservative). Unfortunately he has given no clue as to how he will sovle the budget woes that sank Gray Davis. With a legislature likely to give him no honeymoon, he is after all a minority governor, he will encounter frustration very quickly. Whether he proves himself flexible enough to raise some taxes will be the key to whether he becomes a success (and holds off a recall effort) or whether he becomes Jesse Ventura on a grand scale. I hope he brings Warren Buffet back from wherever he hid him after the first few days of the campaign.
Nationally, the Democrats have to be a bit concerned. It is tempting and even plausible to write this off as a personal reaction to Gray Davis. To me that is a small part of it. The election signals one of two things, an overall dissatisfaction with the status quo which hurts all incumbents and may help Democrats such as Dean and Clark or an electorate that still has enough sympathy for the small government argument to help Bush get reelection next year. I hope that it is the former but I am far from convinced.
I've already written that I think the recall is a disaster for California politics. There is now a very real danger that California will be in a state of perpetual gubernatorial elections and at the very least any governor will be afraid to do anything unpopular, particularly raise taxes. Until and unless the state constitution is amended, governors will govern perpetually looking over their shoulder. There are plenty of rich Californians who can afford to bankroll a recall effort. My prediction is that Arianna Huffington will bankroll the effort to recall Arnold (excuse me, I mean Governor Schwarzenegger) within a year.
What does this mean for California and national politics. What little we know of Arnold's substantive politics does not seem too bad (socially liberal, fiscally conservative). Unfortunately he has given no clue as to how he will sovle the budget woes that sank Gray Davis. With a legislature likely to give him no honeymoon, he is after all a minority governor, he will encounter frustration very quickly. Whether he proves himself flexible enough to raise some taxes will be the key to whether he becomes a success (and holds off a recall effort) or whether he becomes Jesse Ventura on a grand scale. I hope he brings Warren Buffet back from wherever he hid him after the first few days of the campaign.
Nationally, the Democrats have to be a bit concerned. It is tempting and even plausible to write this off as a personal reaction to Gray Davis. To me that is a small part of it. The election signals one of two things, an overall dissatisfaction with the status quo which hurts all incumbents and may help Democrats such as Dean and Clark or an electorate that still has enough sympathy for the small government argument to help Bush get reelection next year. I hope that it is the former but I am far from convinced.
Tuesday, October 07, 2003
League Championship Series
Wow. What a first round. With the possible exception of 2001 (three series go to 5 games), this was the best Divisional series round ever. The A's Red Sox Series was one of the best series ever and the Marlins and Giants played two of the better playoff games ever. Meanwhile, I went 2-2 with my picks (I knew I should have had the guts to pick the Cubs). On to the next round.
National League
You could have made a lot of money in Vegas at the beginning of the season picking a Marlins Cubs NLCS. Neither one was a dominant team in the regular season but both got hot at the right time. Both are loaded with karma (which of course I don't believe in). It is very hard to differentiate between these two teams. Florida has a slight Pythagorean advantage but the Cubs have Wood and Prior at the top of their games. I think Florida presents problems for the Cubs that the Braves did not. First of all, as strange as it sounds, Florida has much better pitching than Atlanta meaning they might stay in a game or two started by Prior or Wood and force the Cubs to take out their aces. Second the lineup, while not as powerful as Atlanta is still a lot better than Chicago's and is hot right now. Therefore I am being a killjoy and picking the Marlins in six.
American League
Anyone who knows me, knows I'm going to be a killjoy with this pick as well. These two teams battled for 162 games and were the two best teams in baseball this year. Head to head, the Yankees took 10 of 19, as even as you get. Aside from the historic rivalry, the matchups are fantastic and the questions are many. The Red Sox hitters have to wonder if they struggled with a depleted (and by the end exhausted) A's staff how will they cope with the very hot Yankees pitchers. On the other hand, the Yankees pitchers know that pitching well against Minnesota is different than pitching well against the Red Sox (less than a month ago, Boston made Petitte and Clemens look very human). Pedro threw a lot of pitches in the Oakland series and won't be available until game 3. Will he be at full strength? Lowe threw three times against Oakland, will he be ready for game 2? However, the Yankee hitters have scared no one of late until game 4 against Minnesota. How loud will Fenway be for the probable Pedro-Clemens match on Saturday?
A series like this comes down to slight advantages. I think the rest that the Yankees have, particularly the pitching staff, will make the difference. Yankees in 6.
National League
You could have made a lot of money in Vegas at the beginning of the season picking a Marlins Cubs NLCS. Neither one was a dominant team in the regular season but both got hot at the right time. Both are loaded with karma (which of course I don't believe in). It is very hard to differentiate between these two teams. Florida has a slight Pythagorean advantage but the Cubs have Wood and Prior at the top of their games. I think Florida presents problems for the Cubs that the Braves did not. First of all, as strange as it sounds, Florida has much better pitching than Atlanta meaning they might stay in a game or two started by Prior or Wood and force the Cubs to take out their aces. Second the lineup, while not as powerful as Atlanta is still a lot better than Chicago's and is hot right now. Therefore I am being a killjoy and picking the Marlins in six.
American League
Anyone who knows me, knows I'm going to be a killjoy with this pick as well. These two teams battled for 162 games and were the two best teams in baseball this year. Head to head, the Yankees took 10 of 19, as even as you get. Aside from the historic rivalry, the matchups are fantastic and the questions are many. The Red Sox hitters have to wonder if they struggled with a depleted (and by the end exhausted) A's staff how will they cope with the very hot Yankees pitchers. On the other hand, the Yankees pitchers know that pitching well against Minnesota is different than pitching well against the Red Sox (less than a month ago, Boston made Petitte and Clemens look very human). Pedro threw a lot of pitches in the Oakland series and won't be available until game 3. Will he be at full strength? Lowe threw three times against Oakland, will he be ready for game 2? However, the Yankee hitters have scared no one of late until game 4 against Minnesota. How loud will Fenway be for the probable Pedro-Clemens match on Saturday?
A series like this comes down to slight advantages. I think the rest that the Yankees have, particularly the pitching staff, will make the difference. Yankees in 6.
Friday, October 03, 2003
Rushing away from ESPN
Well few subjects suit my interests in sports and politics as Rush Limbaugh's unfortunate remarks about Philadelphia quarterback Donovan McNabb this week. Unfortunately EJ Dionne wrote the column I wished I had written at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37449-2003Oct2.html . Basically he wondered the heck ESPN was thinking when they hired Rush, that he would never say anything uncontroversial and modify his entire personality? The only shock in this whole affair is that it happened in the 4th week of the season.
Hopefully this will be the end of hiring personalities to broadcast games based on their celebrity rather than their expertise. In addition to skirting the line of racism, Limbaugh betrayed his ignorance about football as well. If (as Bill Simmons on ESPN.com noted) we are so anxious to overrate black quarterbacks, why is Steve McNair on Tennessee so underrated. Football has had a problem with racism in judging quarterbacks and coaches for so long that Limbaugh picked an argument that he couldn't possibly make plausible.
Making such arguments are fine when you are a radio talk show host unconcerned about those outside your target low IQ audience. Its inappropriate and stupid when you are given a national forum. But as Dionne implies (but is too polite to say), nothing in Rush's personality would lead us to believe he was going to gain smarts just because he got hired to talk about football. Now he can go back to those who appreciate him and find a welcoming audience for his offensive views.
Hopefully this will be the end of hiring personalities to broadcast games based on their celebrity rather than their expertise. In addition to skirting the line of racism, Limbaugh betrayed his ignorance about football as well. If (as Bill Simmons on ESPN.com noted) we are so anxious to overrate black quarterbacks, why is Steve McNair on Tennessee so underrated. Football has had a problem with racism in judging quarterbacks and coaches for so long that Limbaugh picked an argument that he couldn't possibly make plausible.
Making such arguments are fine when you are a radio talk show host unconcerned about those outside your target low IQ audience. Its inappropriate and stupid when you are given a national forum. But as Dionne implies (but is too polite to say), nothing in Rush's personality would lead us to believe he was going to gain smarts just because he got hired to talk about football. Now he can go back to those who appreciate him and find a welcoming audience for his offensive views.
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
A Scandal With Legs?
For the first time in the Bush Administration, a scandal has hit the front page of the papers for several days running. What used to be standard fare in the Clinton Administration has become an exception now. The reasons for this have been given as Bush and Rove's autocratic management of the executive branch, wimpy Democrats not pushing the Haliburton issues, or the conservative media bias (I made the last one up but I think it has some validity).
The scandal involved conservative columnist Robet Novak publishing the name of a CIA agent in his column about her husband who had criticized the Administration's claims on Iraqi nuclear arms. The name apparently came from "senior Administration officials." The CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate the leak and while the Bush Administration has said all the right things, they are resisting the appointment of a special prosecutor.
My guess is that this scandal will be made to go away if the leak can be pinned on a lower level official in the White House. If however, it comes from Rove, as Wilson (the husband of the agent) initially claimed or someone at that level who the Administration wants to protect, we may have a long road to the truth. From the Democrats perspective, the longer the road, the better. Remember, the media and the American public forgive mistakes, its the coverups that always get Administrations in trouble. Nothing like a little lying under oath to get heads rolling. So the Bush reaction over the next few weeks will be paramount in deciding the outcome. This won't go away unless someone takes the fall.
As several critics (including my wife) have noted, another huge mystery is why Novak published the name at all. It was not at all central to his column which was ironically quite positive toward Wilson. Either he was doing the bidding of the White House leaker who wanted to punish Wilson (in which case Novak loses what little credibility he had as a journalist) or he made an unthinking mistake.
Bush said today he wanted the truth. Since our President is so fond of pithy movie phrases, one can only hope the Democrats assert, "You can't handle the truth."
The scandal involved conservative columnist Robet Novak publishing the name of a CIA agent in his column about her husband who had criticized the Administration's claims on Iraqi nuclear arms. The name apparently came from "senior Administration officials." The CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate the leak and while the Bush Administration has said all the right things, they are resisting the appointment of a special prosecutor.
My guess is that this scandal will be made to go away if the leak can be pinned on a lower level official in the White House. If however, it comes from Rove, as Wilson (the husband of the agent) initially claimed or someone at that level who the Administration wants to protect, we may have a long road to the truth. From the Democrats perspective, the longer the road, the better. Remember, the media and the American public forgive mistakes, its the coverups that always get Administrations in trouble. Nothing like a little lying under oath to get heads rolling. So the Bush reaction over the next few weeks will be paramount in deciding the outcome. This won't go away unless someone takes the fall.
As several critics (including my wife) have noted, another huge mystery is why Novak published the name at all. It was not at all central to his column which was ironically quite positive toward Wilson. Either he was doing the bidding of the White House leaker who wanted to punish Wilson (in which case Novak loses what little credibility he had as a journalist) or he made an unthinking mistake.
Bush said today he wanted the truth. Since our President is so fond of pithy movie phrases, one can only hope the Democrats assert, "You can't handle the truth."
