Caricatures of Mohammed, Voices of Reason, and the Contagion of Liberty

I missed this story when it first broke. There's nothing like a little arson, boycott, and violent threats to call the attention.

First the background

Last fall a Danish newspaper--Jyllands-Posten--printed numerous caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed. Editors at the paper had wondered at the lack of political cartoon lampooning of Muslim fundamentalists who justified their suicidal tactics by invoking the name of Mohammed. After doing a little investigative reporting, they found that most political cartoonists were wary of drawing such cartoons because they feared reprisals from radical Muslims in their own country. Their fears were not without justification, the murder of Theo van Gogh by a jihadist is just one example. Jyllands-Posten then invited some 50-60 cartoonists to sketch drawings making fun of these extremists.

The response of many in the Muslim world justified their original fears.

Along with Martin Luther King Jr. style boycotts of Danish goods, many Muslims have protested the printing of the aforementioned caricatures by storming the Danish embassy. Several cases of arson and numerous threats to cut off heads and hands have joined the peaceful boycott.

Enough background, here's my take:

I don't condone making fun of anyone's religion. I respect the right of others to worship however or whatever they wish. In a perfect world, all people would respect this right and newspapers would avoid publishing pictures offensive to any church, organized or otherwise.

However, my belief in freedom of the press trumps my desire to avoid seeing caricatures of my own religion in the Op-Ed page, comic section, or even a popular film. Any news source or media outlet should avoid a double standard in printing offensive material. For years US and Euro news has reported and printed material offensive to the Christian and Jewish world, why should their treatment of Islam be any different? Will they (will we?) allow fear of reprisal to cow us into a fetal position of subservience?

What really gets under the skin are what Charles Krauthammer calls "voices of reason." These are non-Muslim "moderates" who suggest that Jyllands Posten abused freedom of the press and was out of line. They acknowledge, and rightly so, that the vast majority of the Muslim world rejects the violent acts of these few Islamofascists. As Krauthammer points out, "A true Muslim moderate is one who protests desecrations of all faiths." Unfortunately, most of the Muslim moderates who decry the printing of these caricatures ignore this double standard. Again, from Krauthammer:

Have any of these "moderates'' ever protested the grotesque caricatures of Christians and, most especially, Jews that are broadcast throughout the Middle East on a daily basis? The sermons on Palestinian TV that refer to Jews as the sons of pigs and monkeys? The Syrian prime-time TV series that shows rabbis slaughtering a gentile boy in order to ritually consume his blood? The 41-part (!) series on Egyptian TV based on that anti-Semitic czarist forgery (and inspiration of the Nazis), ``The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,'' showing the Jews to be engaged in a century-old conspiracy to control the world?

Why "voices of reason" in the US or Europe would pander to people espousing such a hypocritical standards is beyond me. I can understand the difficult position of moderate Muslims living in tyrannical regimes, but the behavior of moderates in liberal democracies surpasses understanding. William F. Buckley Jr. (WFB) explains the American tradition.

Iconoclastic expressions in America are broadly condemned as being in bad taste. However, there is certainly freedom in America to deride Christ. This is done every day on Broadway, and every other day in Hollywood. Americans do not take up arms in protest. Derisory material at the expense of Jews is permitted only if the executioner is a Jewish comedian. Care on this front is a welcome legacy of the Holocaust: No jokes are told by visitors to Buchenwald.

American newspapers print what they will about Christians and Jews because they aren't afraid the Christian Coalition (whatever you may say about them) would burn the offices of the New York Times or threaten to chop off their collective head and hands. Why defend the actions of a radical Muslim minority? To avoid printing such things is almost a tacit acceptance of their legitimacy in attacking the West. I hope that's not the case, as it suggests a sort of self-loathing. A topic for another day, and another post. The position of moderate Muslims is less neurotic and more easily understood.

Let me explain. Most Middle Eastern states are autocracies. Even the UN, champion of tyrants and terrorists (Hugo Chavez, Yasser Arafat, et al.) has criticized abuses of human rights in these countries. In order to avoid the natural human predicament response to tyrannical rule (remember, tyranny-->revolution-->anarchy-->competing groups-->tyranny), the various heads of state instead use their pocket priests to preach a doctrine of hate. Their focus? All things Western--especially the US. It is much easier to get a restless populace to hate and blame Western civilization than it is to solve the ills associated with years of neglect and abuse.

So I can understand Muslim moderates. Better to preach the tyrant-approved criticism of the West than to speak out against violations of Islam in their own countries. Such a campaign would no doubt result in Saddam-style punishment--unfortunately Hussein wasn't the only crazy head of state in the region.

Moderate Muslims aren't ignorant of abuses in their homeland.

"Why today we see all this solidarity to protest the cartoons. . .as if only these pictures had insulted the Prophet Mohammad," Ali Mahdi wrote in a letter published in Lebanon's left-wing daily As-Safir.

"Don't you think that injustice, torture, illiteracy and the restrictions on freedoms (in the Muslim world) are also considered an insult to the Prophet . . . who called for the respect for human rights?" . . .

Several Arab Web logs posted the cartoons and hosted online debates about them. Many left-wing and secular-minded Muslims also circulated the cartoons by e-mail.

"What is the use of getting angry for the sake of the Prophet when I have a thousand poor people in my neighborhood?" wrote one Egyptian blogger on his Web site "Justice for Everyone."

"What is the use of writing a million letters (about the Prophet's greatness) when I wet my pants every time a police car passes by my house?"

There is a reason the US believes in the separation of church and state. Catholicism was used by European states during the middle ages to control the masses. It was probably in observation of this that Karl Marx uttered his famous "opiate" statement. The same thing is being repeated in the Muslim world.

I don't believe there is anything fundamentally violent about Islam. I haven't read the Koran, but excerpts I've seen, reports I've read and people I talk to indicate it is a peaceable religion. In one instance it is being used to subjugate the people of the Middle East and in the other it is used to justify violent attacks against the West.

The quote above from Ali Mahdi is valuable and powerful. It shows that many Muslims are aware of the depravities of these tyrannical theocracies. As James Taranto points out, this quote serves as "a useful counterpoint to those who say Islam and democracy are incompatible--a common position on both the anti-Muslim right and the anti-democratic left."

Fortunately for liberal democracies in the West and the subjugated masses of the Muslim world, both groups are being proved wrong by the successes in Iraq. Just this week, Ibrahim al-Jaafari was elected as candidate to serve as Prime Minister for the next four years. As the Wall Street Journal notes, this is just

the latest positive step in Iraqi political development -- which includes two elections, negotiations to write a new and liberal constitution and a successful referendum on that document. We'll let the cynics decided if this qualifies as "Jeffersonian," or merely Iraqi pragmatism, but whatever it is we'll call it progress.

A successful democracy in Iraq puts regional tyrants on notice. In the past they may have been able to control the flow of information. The internet, with bloggers like Mr. Mahdi, are beginning to end that monopoly. What Revolutionary era historians call the "contagion of liberty" will begin to take hold in those countries and they will agitate for freedom and democracy.

Ode to Alta: A Valentine's Love Sonnet

Every so often, I lose the vision
Of the more important things in life;
I need a storm t’help see with precision,
So that I can stride smoothly through the strife.
The storms, you see, come and bring clarity,
Through them I can define my existence,
As our God, in an act of Charity,
Provides much-needed, powd’ry white assistance.
Whether hiking the Castle, farming turns,
Or making powder laps in Supreme Bowl,
Ski Sugarloaf once more as th’day adjourns,
Last run, High-T to Gunsight, out Keyhole.
Skiing’s Mecca, Medina, Holy Land,
Alta’s got soul, experience firsthand!

Defeaticrats - Conclusion

"Who knew a post about 12daily Pro would lead to a lengthy discussion of Mormon doctrine?" (hat tip: Morgan Habedank) Not me. Some interesting and important questions were raised. Thinking politics were controversial enough, I had tried to avoid writing religious posts.

Historical questions maintain a central position in the development of the debate. Our friend the Raisin has called for a "reasonable" response from the humble dictator of this blog--me. So I will succumb to these populist demands and give the people what they want. Stay tuned for my considered response.

In the meantime, here's Mark Steyn with what remains of an downright humorous and entertaining treatment of the Democrats ridiculous position on Iraq.
__________
The Defeaticrats
Of hearts and minds, at home and in Iraq

MARK STEYN

REALITY CHECK

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, even the media are occasionally obliged to explain the disconnect between received wisdom on Iraq and the actual physical territory that goes by that name. “85 percent of people in the capital are looking to the future with great enthusiasm,” noted Der Spiegel, as impeccably anti-Bush as any publication on the planet, but nonetheless reporting the economic boom, rising incomes, etc., now enjoyed by many Iraqis. The magazine went on: “How does this happily expectant mood fit in with the bloody scenes of bombings and shootings, the reports of kidnappings, curfews, and shortages?” How indeed? Over to you, media-ethics professors.

It’s not difficult: I said a year and a half ago that the way to look at Iraq is that the Sunni Triangle is Northern Ireland, Kurdistan is Scotland, and the Shiite south is England. Don’t let a pub bombing in Ballymena prevent you from investing in that privatized telecom company in London.

I’m not one of those fellows minded to defer to Jack Murtha because he was a hero in the last war. You could have said the same of Marshal Pétain, and Churchill never listened to him. But I carelessly assumed Murtha did, in fact, have something to say. Instead, as he told Newsweek — in one of those “Bush in the Bubble” stories — he’s piqued because the president didn’t reply to his memo, which, rather than getting hoots of derision, is now regarded as the greatest affront to constitutional propriety since Jim Jeffords failed to land an invite to the White House’s Teacher of the Year reception, for which slight he flipped control of the Senate to Tom Daschle. (Remember him?) If Murtha and Newsweek weren’t trapped in their own bubble, they might understand that a “principled stand” has to be more than a guy whining that the president of the United States won’t return his calls: “The White House has made no attempt to reach out to Murtha since then. ‘None. None. Zero. Not one call,’ a baffled Murtha told Newsweek. ‘I don’t know who the hell they’re talking to. If they talked to people, they wouldn’t get these outbursts. If they’d talked to me, it wouldn’t have happened.’”

I know who the hell they’re talking to: On Iraq, the White House is talking to rather a lot of people. They’re called “Iraqis.” But Murtha is now the lion of the moment, Cindy Sheehan and Joseph Wilson IV merged into the Murtha of all anti-war heroes. So what if there’s no crushing of his dissent, only a sad man who was crushed by being dissed.

But let’s take it as read that I’m a neocon hack clinging to my feeble Wolfowitz-Perle script as Kurdistan secedes and Shiite theocrats seize the south and Zarqawi commands overwhelming support from the Sunni people. Assume that John Kerry is right that “young American soldiers” are “going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women” and that those rampaging Rumsfeldian torturers have brutalized so many of the Iraqi people that they’re unified against us.

Even so, even as crude political finessing, will this pitch work for the Democrats? No. Listen to Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi. They didn’t become leaders because some freak accident took out the other contenders. They head the party because they speak for it. It’s one thing to be defeatist, but the perverse triumphalism of Dean’s defeatism will keep his party mired in the minority through 2006 and 2008. Even if they were right, what’s the “meta-story,” as they say, of Mad How’s soundbite? We’re the party that glories in defeatism? “Vote for us. We told you Americans were losers and we’re right.” Even as shameless self-interest, the Defeaticrat position is a flop.

Unlike those depressed Continentals, Americans are not a pessimistic people, especially when they’ve got nothing to be pessimistic about. The tragedy is that, on so-called “liberal” terms, this is a war Democrats ought to be gung-ho for: More Iraqis participate in the democratic process than Americans; Afghanistan has more women in electoral politics than Canada. Meanwhile, in the most powerful nation on the planet, the two-party system is seizing up because one party’s gone nuts. From Murtha’s “We’re all doomed unless we quit by Tuesday” to John Kerry’s “I was against setting deadlines before I was for them,” the Defeaticrats simply have no serious contribution to make to the most pressing issue of the age. Shame on them, trapped in a quagmire of the mind with no exit strategy in sight.
__________
With all the opportunities Republicans are giving Democrats to take the Senate and House this fall, I'm surprised they still insist on being the pessimistic party. With Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton and Co. running the show, I guess I really shouldn't be all that surprised.

My prediction? Republicans will maintain a majority in both houses--thanks entirely to the ineptness of the Democrats.

Defeaticrats - Part III

Law blogger Ann Althouse had an interesting observation about the blog tendencies of conservatives and liberals (hat tip: James Taranto of Best of the the Web)

What I've noticed, over and over, is that the bloggers on the right link to you when they agree and ignore the disagreements, and the bloggers on the left link only for the things they disagree with, to denounce you with short posts saying you're evil/stupid/crazy. . . .

I'm struck by the way the right perceives me as a potential ally and uses positive reinforcement and the left doesn't see me as anything but an opponent--doesn't even try to engage me with reasoned argument.

The irony is in the similarity between the accusations of the left and the stereotypes they use to prop up their fatuous claims. Blinded, or at least distracted, by an ever present anger--sometimes driving them to apoplectic attacks (see Dem. Chairman Howard Dean, also Hillary Clinton) they refuse to see the successes that have taken place in Iraq (read: three democratic elections).
___________

The Defeaticrats
Of hearts and minds, at home and in Iraq
MARK STEYN

DAZED AND CONFUSED

I’ve never been one for “winning the hearts and minds” of Iraqis. Heart-wise, an awful lot of them dislike infidels and Jews and American soldiers, and, while one may deplore that, it’s just a fact of life. But, in their minds, as those poll numbers indicate, the Iraqis are rational enough to work out where their best interest lies. And, quite reasonably, they figure it doesn’t lie with a psychotic death cult that nowadays mainly blows up Muslims on buses, in shopping markets, schools, and even mosques. That’s the worst corporate diversification since Seagram’s bought Universal Pictures. And at least Seagram’s still made whisky; Zarqawi isn’t killing a lot of infidels these days.

So Iraq’s hearts and minds are operating far more rationally than the Democrats, who these days are both heartless, in their indifference to the aspirations of ordinary Arabs, and mindless, in their calculation of their own best interests. I find Chirac-Schroeder obstructionism easier to understand than the Dean-Boxer variety. For EU politicians, as those French and German poll numbers indicate, there’s not a lot of good options when half the babies in your maternity wards are Muslim. But what’s the thinking behind what the Democrats are doing?

Easy, you say: It’s naked partisan politics. And, to be sure, the broader culture has kind of internalized it as such, to the point where, for example, Dan Balz can publish a huge piece in the Washington Post that from its headline down — “Hillary Clinton Crafts Centrist Stance on War” — assumes that it’s perfectly natural to talk about the foreign policy and national security of one’s own country entirely in political terms. For Balz and for everyone he quotes in the piece, the point of a “policy on Iraq” is not to have a policy that affects Iraq in any real sense but to have a policy that advances domestic political fortunes. “Iraq” might as well be a board game you’re in the national playoffs of.

Example: “Her refusal to advocate a speedy exit from Iraq may reflect a more accurate reading of public anxiety about the choices now facing the country.” Note that Balz takes it for granted that Senator Rodham Clinton should have no principled position on Iraq, no strategic view of the Muslim world, no philosophical preference as to America’s mission abroad, no genuine concerns about security, etc. Indeed, he’s implicitly arguing that the greatest strength of Hillary as a viable Democratic presidential candidate — poor Joe Lieberman’s “Joementum” won’t even place him in the Top Ten in the Iowa caucus — is that she’s the least encumbered with anything that will prevent her from agreeing with whatever the 10 p.m. internal polling numbers are showing.

Take that headline: What would a “centrist stance” be on, say, the Second World War? Every few days, some media outlet or other runs a piece about how Bush is “in a bubble” — and no doubt he is, to one degree or another, as busy world leaders tend to be, by definition. But the American media raging that Bush is in a bubble are the equivalent of that famous British newspaper headline: “Fog in Channel. Continent Cut Off.” Whatever bubble Bush is in, it’s a vast jostling metropolis of diverse peoples stretching to the horizon compared with the shrunken little bubble the Democrats and the media inhabit, reinforcing each other’s illusions, like two madmen playing Chinese whispers. No serious person — by which I mean a fellow who’s aware there’s a real country called “Iraq” and it’s in a part of the world called “the Middle East” — could read that Balz analysis without weeping with laughter. Pseudo-policies are soberly considered as if they had any meaning in reality: Should we withdraw from Europe six months after D-Day? Or commit ourselves to a phased drawing down over three to nine months? Clearly, if we announce we’ll be leaving the Continent by October 27, that might embolden Herr Hitler. But, if we say 10 percent of our forces might remain until February 1947, that will give us a more flexible exit strategy with strong centrist appeal.
__________
There exists a sycophantic symbiosis between Democrats and a liberal dominated press. They are constantly parroting each other's talking points. For a liberal generation of politicians and press, whose political history mother's milk was Vietnam and Watergate, they are constantly trying to conflate those two experiences with George W. Bush and Iraq. Think I'm wrong? Pick up a newspaper or other periodical and read any commentary by any liberal writer about the current situation in Iraq or the overblown non-scandal that is the anti-terror wiretapping conducted by the Bush administration.

The points is, too many Democrats (not all, thank you Joe Lieberman) don't hear anything else other than their own ideas because they are repeated back to them by the press. Conservatives can't help but hear them. By and large, American universities (BYU excepting) are dominated by liberal professors who knowingly and otherwise push their ideas onto an eager and naieve young student body--a student body full of world-problem solving zeal. Unfortunately, many of these trusted gatekeepers simply use their students as tools to further their own agenda. Talk about indoctrination. It may not be organized religion, but secularism and liberalism have all the same characteristics. Are their proponents any less zealous than the "seminarians" at BYU?

If BYU pushes a certain bias they are hardly alone--though they may be alone in pushing a conservative ideology that includes elements of faith. I am a teaching assistant for a course that incorporates American history, politics, and economics and teaches a certain level of American exceptionalism. God may not have hand-delivered the Constitution to the delegates at Philadelphia, but everything I've read seems to indicate involvement of a higher power. This much I am familiar with and believe in. At the same time we teach these things, we acknowledge the hypocricies of American history. We recognize and teach about the incongruities of 'all men created equal' and the owning of slaves, treatment of Native Americans, and the less than equal status of women. We don't gloss over or ignore any of these issues. I think it is a mistake to assume that any dissenting opinion is based on brainwashing or stupidity.

The Defeaticrats Part II

Most nights I lie awake wishing one of two things-- a larger liberal readership and that everyone at BYU didn't agree with me. No wait, I wish I had a larger readership and I would love it if more people agreed with me. Or, I wish I really knew everything while now I only think I do.

Sometimes I think everyone should let me run their life. I'm a heck of a lot more decisive than the girl in front of me at the Cougar Express, trying to decide between the orange and the bag of potato chips. She knows she wants the bag of potato chips, who does she think she's fooling? And the next time anyone (sorry girls) pays for a $0.59 candy bar with a check, I'm going to slap that Snickers out of their hand so fast that for some reason they'll wish they'd bought the orange instead.

I'll tell you one group that definitely should be letting me make their decisions for them, all those who thought 12DailyPro was a great money making opportunity. Regrettably, some of my friends got caught up in that scam. Seriously guys, didn't your fathers tell you about their own rough encounters with earlier pyramid schemes?

Enough of the crazy autocratic rants; without further delay I give you the next in a series of conservative but not--unfortunately--religiously fundamentalist posts.
__________
The Defeaticrats
Of hearts and minds, at home and in Iraq
by Mark Steyn

INSURGENCY AND ITS DISCONTENTS

On the other hand, this does belatedly prove the anti-war crowd’s long-held view that Saddam’s secular Baathists and Osama’s theocrat terrorists would never collaborate, even if it took until last month for the participants themselves to get wise to it. And, alas, unlike the Dems with Hillary, in the Sunni Triangle there’s no Sunni triangulator to craft a more nuanced position to hold both the Lieberbaathist and Pelosama wings together.

So the Shiites, Kurds, Sunnis, the Arab street, and the Baath party have figured Iraqi democracy’s winning. That leaves al-Qaeda. Well, not exactly: Ayman Zawahiri, the number-two honcho in al-Qaeda while they’re maintaining the polite fiction that bin Laden’s still functioning, recently rapped terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi on the knuckles and called on him to cut out killings that “the masses do not understand or approve.” (The twitchy Mr. Zawahiri was presumably thinking of, for example, the assassination of the septuagenarian grand imam of Fallujah for urging Sunnis to get out and vote.)

So the Shiites, Kurds, Sunnis, the Arab street, the Baath party, and bin Laden’s deputy think the insurgency’s a bust. Hands up, who thinks it’s winning?

Well, there’s Howard Dean: “The idea that we are going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong.” And look over there, it’s Jack Murtha, and he’s a veteran, and he thinks we need to scramble for the last chopper over the embassy compound right now! “There’s a civil war going,” he says. “Our troops are the targets of the civil war. They’re the only people that could have unified the various factions in Iraq. And they’re unified against us.”

By “us,” I think he means him and Zarqawi. And no, I’m not “questioning his patriotism”; I’m questioning his sanity. It was famously said that the Vietnam War was lost on television. In this instance, the Iraq War’s being lost only on television. In Iraq, it’s a tremendous victory. Indeed, it has the potential to be one of the most consequential, transformative victories of the modern age; but even if it doesn’t ever fulfill that potential, it’s still a huge success.
__________
I guess what I really dont understand is why there has to be a Democrat or Republican position on the current state of affairs in Iraq. I understand that many thought the war was wrong in the first place. We can agree to disagree on that point. However, that doesn't change reality and I think a reasonable analysis of our position must logically lead to the conclusion that success, not immediate withdrawal, is the best possible outcome.

By all means, let us debate the alternatives in Iraq and even future strategy in the war on terror. Pulling our troops out now or before Iraq can defend itself from enemies abroad and within will have disastrous consequences. Then Iraq will turn from a promsing young democracy into the terrorist haven that many liberals believe it to be now.

The Defeaticrats Part I

With the Superbowl having sucked all the creative energy out of me, I'm left to find other sources for my online content. I decided to shift gears from sports to my other great love, politics.

Then it hit me, I'd serialize an article by one of my favorite writers, Mark Steyn. He usually writes the back page article for National Review, kind of like Rick Reilly does for Sports Illustrated. Only, I think Steyn is a much better read than Reilly.

I'd been trying to figure out how to work this article into my regular posting--but selective quotation just wont do it justice.

We haven't heard from some of my more liberal readership in some time. I'm guessing/hoping this article will bring them out of the wood-work.

So here it is, "The Defeaticrats: Of hearts and minds, at home and in Iraq," by Mark Steyn
(note: subscription to National Review Online required)
__________
Hands up, everyone who thinks Iraq's a quagmire.

Not the Iraqi people: According to the latest polls, 70 percent think "life is good," and 69 percent are optimistic that things will get even better in the year ahead. For purposes of comparison, they took a similar poll in Europe a while back: In France, 29 percent said they were optimistic about the future; in Germany, 15 percent. Sixty-three percent of Iraqis say they feel "very safe" in their own neighborhoods, which is more than the residents of Clichy-sous-Bois can say.

Well, okay, those cheerful Iraqis are probably Shiites and Kurds and whatnot. How about the Sunnis? For a small minority group that held a disproportionate and repressive grip on power for decades, they've been getting a more solicitous press from Western "liberals" than the white Rhodesians or South Africa's National party ever got. But it turns out, after their strategically disastrous decision to stay home in last January's vote, the Sunnis are participating in Iraq's democratic process in ever greater numbers.

Oh, okay, so the Shiites and Kurds and Sunnis are feeling chipper, but in the broader Middle East the disastrous neocon invasion has inflamed moderate Arab opinion against America. Well, it's true the explosive Arab street finally exploded the other day--with 200,000 Jordanians protesting in Amman, waving angry banners and yelling, "Burn in hell, Rumsfeld," and, "You are a coward Bush." Whoops, my mistake: They were yelling, "Burn in hell Zarqawi," and, "You are a coward, Zarqawi." If you want to hear someone yelling, "You are a coward, Bush," you've got to go to Cindy Sheehan's stakeout. And, in fairness to the network news divisions, it may be because so many of their camera crews have taken up permanent residence at the otherwise underpopulated Camp Cindy that they were unable to cover what was the largest demonstration against terrorism ever seen on the streets of the Middle East.

Oh, well. So the Shiites and the Kurds and the Sunni Iraqis and the Arab street are all on baord, but come on, what about the insurgents? Everybody knows they're winning...but, er, apparently they don't. The Baathist diehard insurgents have split from the foreign al-Qaeda insurgents. While the latter denounced the Iraqi election as "a Satanic project," the Saddamite remnants urged Sunnis to participate and said they'd protect polling stations from attacks by the foreign terrorists so that citizens could vote for their approved candidates (the leftover bits of Uday and Qusay, now running on the Psychotic Dictatorship Nostalgia Party ticket). This division between the foreign nutcakes and the domestic nutcakes is the biggest strategic split over the insurgency since Joe Lieberman respectfully distanced himself from Nancy Pelosi.
__________
So while I get caught up on homework put on hold for the Superbowl, you all can sit back, relax, and get caught up on what's really going on in Iraq.

Super Bull

Hines Ward was selected as the MVP of Super Bowl XL. Five receptions for 123 yards and a touchdown are respectable numbers. As I've mentioned before, it was the type of consistent performance that helped me win our fantasy football championship. But Ward wasn't the difference maker.

Despite what ESPN.com headlines say about Big Ben "propel[ling]" the Steelers to a win, it wasn't he of 22.6 QB rating with two interceptions who brought Lombardi back to Pittsburgh.

It wasn't Moron Porter with a measly three tackles, whose mouth proved bigger than his play.

Nor was it Troy Polamalu who was essentially a non-factor. As I predicted, Michael Boulware proved to have a bigger impact than this one-time SC safety. Though both had five tackles, Boulware had an interception, which unfortunately the 'Hawks offense couldn't turn into points.

The press wanted it to be Jerome "the short bus" Bettis, but on two consecutive tries, he couldn't punch it into the endzone leading to Rothlisberger's phantom touchdown.

Nope, it wasn't any of these guys.

The NFL wanted Bettis to win it--they were sympathetic to Cowher and his SuperIneptness too. And Detroit, a city of burned out buildings; a city whose greatest recent contributions to American society and culture are Kid Rock and Eminem? This city needed some kind of connection to a game their team will never see. They found it in Bettis and he delivered 43 yards on 14 carries. And color me dumbfounded that they didn't just say, "what the heck, everyone wants it, lets just give the MVP to Bettis."

They should have given it to the officials.

Seattle was the #1 or #2 least penalized team in the NFL. In the Super Bowl they were penalized 7 times for 70 yards, but even that doesn't tell the whole story. As Michael Smith of ESPN.com points out,

The Seahawks lost 161 yards to penalties when you combine the penalty yards (70) and the plays the flags wiped out (91). By halftime alone, when it trailed 7-3, Seattle had had 73 hard-earned yards and a touchdown eliminated.

While the Steelers, an oft-penalized team during the regular season, only had 3 penalties for 20 yards--two of which were blatant false start penalties in the first quarter. Apparently not even the blatent horse collar tackle of Alexander by MotorMouth Porter was enough to draw a little yellow for the Hawks. Not only did the officials turn a blind eye to Pittsburgh penalties throughout the game, they called ridiculous ones on the Seahawks.

Case #1: Jackson's TD was called back on a weak "push off" in the endzone. This horrible call turned a touchdown into a field goal and sucked momentum away from the Seahawks. As I discussed with Justin, a Jazz fan from Salt Lake, Jordan pushed off, but Jackson didn't.

Case #2: Hat tip to Matt from Kennewick for this one and the accompanying article. Again, from Michael Smith:

Some penalties meant points; others meant field position. A holding call in the second quarter negated Peter Warrick's 34-yard punt return that would have started Seattle in Pittsburgh territory.

When Pittsburgh couldn't make the tackle, an official was always there to make the play.

Case #3: Early in the 4th quarter, with the 'Hawks down 14-10, Hasselbeck completes a pass to Stevens taking them to the 1 yard line only to be called back because of a holding penalty. Locklear's hold in the 1st quarter was legit, this one was a farce.

Case #4: On the next play Hasselbeck was sacked and on the next play he threw an interception. Adding insult to insult was the "low block" penalty called against Hasselbeck--the guy who made the tackle on the runner. This penalty was among the worst I have ever seen. They could have picked up the flag when they realized that it was indeed Hasselbeck who had made the tackle, but they didn't. They decided it was better to be wrong and ignorant than right and fair. Holmgren was right to complain to the officials at the half.

Case #5: This one is best told by the Seattle PI's Jim Moore.

In the fourth quarter, while the Steelers milked the clock, I swear I saw the play clock tick down to "0" before the ball was snapped, but Pittsburgh magically called a timeout, apparently with a nanosecond to spare.

Instead of a delay-of-game penalty and a third-and-11, the Steelers, of course, came out of the timeout and got the first down on a pass to Antwaan Randle El.

The Steelers always seemed to get a call from the officials just when they needed it. Talk about performing in the clutch.

The company (NFL) storyline was a storybook ending for the Bus in Detroit. The officials know who signs their checks and delivered accordingly.

Despite the horrible officiating, the Seahawks still had a chance to win this one. A failed conversion on 3rd down by one of my favorite players, Mack strong, three dropped passes by Jerramy Stevens and two missed field goals by Josh Brown probably would have been enough to give Seattle the win. With the odds stacked against them, those mistakes and the officials in their pocket will give the Steelers the win every time.

Seahawks 27 Steelers 17

I know the Vegas oddsmakers have the Steelers as 4.5 point favorites. I just think a lot of Steelers fans are going to lose a lot of money.

Here it is, my pre-game analysis.

Offense

I don't think anyone doubts that the Seahawks have the best offense in the game. The doubts come because most think the Steelers defense is better than the Seahawks offense. There are essentially four reasons why I think the Seattle offense can beat the Pittsburgh defense.

1. The Offensive Line
Seattle has the best line in the NFL. Pro-Bowl offensive lineman comprise the entire left side of the line and, we learned recently, also center Robbie Tobeck. Right guard Chris Gray and tackle Sean Locklear are not far behind them either. This is an offensive line that with Mack Strong will be manhandling the Pittsburgh front seven by the end of the game. The Steelers may stop Shaun Alexander a couple of times in the 1st and 2nd quarters, but after that they will dominate. That same line will provide Matt Hasselbeck with more protection than the Broncos gave Jake Plummer or the Dolts gave Peyton Manning. And, unlike the morons calling plays for those teams, Seattle wont give up on the run.

2. Matt Hasselbeck
He was the best QB in the NFL in the month of December and during the playoffs has had QB ratings well over 100. At one point against the Panthers he was 8 for 8. The best part of Hasselbeck has been his decision making. When WRs were covered down field he either threw the ball away or rushed for the necessary first down yardage. Pundits have been crowing about Big Ben for the last two weeks. Hasselbeck will show that he is the best QB in the Superbowl and among the best in the league.

3. Seattle WRs (including Jerramy Stevens)
Idiot Porter may profess to not know Jerramy Stevens, but he should. In the last 6 games Stevens has scored 4 TDs and is Seattle's #2 receiver in the playoffs. At 6'7", with incredible athleticism, he provides a sure-handed target for Hasselbeck. Porter and Polamalu haven't had to deal with a TE like him. If, as many predict, Pittsburgh has 8 or 9 men in the box, watch for Stevens to make them pay. Or Darrell Jackson, Joe Jurivicious, Bobby Engram, Seneca Wallace, DJ Hackett and Ryan Hannam. There may not be a Chad Johnson or Randy Moss in the bunch (mostly because D-Jack isn't that flamboyant) but they are all smart, catch everything, and run-block well.

4. Shaun Alexander
Edgerrin James isn't as good. Denver's musical RBs aren't as good. LT might be better, but then again, San Diego didn't even make the playoffs. MVP All-Star Shaun Alexander is set to have a big game. He avoids the big hit which means he rarely gets beat up and worn down by the end of the game. In fact, he seems to get stronger as the game goes on--as does his offensive line. He is also great in short yardage, third down situations. At one point he was 15 for 15 in 3rd and 1 situations. The only way to stop him may be to do as Washington did and hope some freak hit gives him a concussion. Pittsburgh's 3-4 and their vaunted zone-blitz are good against the West Coast Offense. The only problem is, Mike Holmgren's offense is far more balanced than say a Philadelphia offense that throws the ball 60% of the time. Replacing a 325 lb. defensive tackle with a 250 lb. linebacker just makes it all that easier for Seattle's offensive line to push them around. That is the critique of the 3-4, it can be susceptible to the run.

Defense
Of course everyone loves the Steeler defense, after all, they are from Pittsburgh, toughest city that side of 8 Mile. It's easy to equate Seattle with Microsoft with dorks with wimpy and somehow conclude that Seattle's defense is vanilla. Tell that to Carolina. Or maybe Pennsylvania residents would prefer to recall the Monday Night game vs. Philadelphia. Remember how your Eagles were embarrassed on national TV? In case you forgot, the Super Bowl will be Part II of Seattle's domination of the state of Pennsylvania. The Seahawks finished with one of the top run defenses. Their pass defense didn't fare as well but this was more a result of injury and the resultant musical cornerbacks rather than ability. As with the offense, here are four reasons I think the Seattle defense can stop the Pittsburgh offense.

1. Defensive Line
Grant Wistrom, Rocky Bernard, Marcus Tubbs, Bryce Fisher--these guys are good. Rocky Bernard sacked Delhomme 2 (I say 3) times. He had 10.5 total sacks during the year and should be going to the Pro-Bowl. Seattle led the NFL with 50 sacks--that's one more than Miami and three more than Blitzburgh. Why isn't anyone asking how Pittsburgh is going to protect Big Ben?

2. Lofa Tatupu
I've been singing his praises the entire season. He should have been the Defensive Rookie of the Year. At least he got some vindication by being named as Brian Urlacher's replacement in the Pro-Bowl. All he does is make play after play after play. The key to Pittsburgh's rush offense is not Detroit's erstwhile resident now returned home--Jerome "the short bus" Bettis. The key is Willie Parker. They love to run the toss with Willie Parker, but it's not going to work against Seattle. The main reason is Lofa Tatupu. Watch him blow it up the first time they run it and you'll know what I'm talking about.

3. Marcus Trufant & Andre Dyson
You know how good Trufant is or at least you should. What's overlooked is the talent of Andre Dyson. One publication I read this week called him the most underrated cover corner in the NFC. This is due, in part, to the fact that he missed several games because of injury. Hines Ward is good, and I love him for winning our Fantasy Football League Championship, but these guys can stop him--and Randle El.

4. Michael Boulware
Polamalu gets all the press (yes he's good, but also crazy. What is it about Pittsburgh defenders and mental instability?) but watch and see who makes more big plays. It just might be Seattle safety Michael Boulware. Last year as a rookie he made three game saving interceptions in the closing seconds of games. This year he has only gotten better. He intercepted Delhomme once (who didn't?) in the Conference Championship and I'm betting will do the same in the Superbowl.

Conclusion

The Steelers are good. I respect the team and especially the coach. Rothlisberger has been great in the playoffs. But remember, he is only in his second year. Does anyone really think that the Broncos defense really showed up in the AFC Championship? The Seattle defense will not be so uninspired.

Don't be surprised if Seattle goes up 14 points in the first quarter forcing the Steelers to throw the ball. The Seahawks will get to the QB and Big Ben will fade under the pressure and throw interceptions. Just like Jake Delhomme.

After writing this, I've almost talked myself into picking the Seahawks by more than 10 points.

Perhaps the biggest reason Seattle will win the Superbowl? Mike Holmgren. He has been to four and been on the winning side of three. Remind me, how many Superbowls has Coach Cowher won? Holmgren is the best play callers in the league and among the best overall coaches. His team and especially his offense will be prepared for anything and everything. For those of you who like good people to win the game, Mike Holmgren is one. He is a great family man who loves his wife and daughters and cares about his players. For Christmas he sent his wife on a humanitarian trip to Africa. I'm sure Mike would be there with her right now, if he weren't coaching the Seahawks in the Superbowl.

Scenes from the Superbowl

I don't like David Horsey's politics, but it's hard to argue with his two Pulitzer Prizes--for those of you keeping track, that's two more than I have. I have to think that as a political cartoon artist, being assigned to cover the Super Bowl is nice. But then I remember the Super Bowl is in Detroit and not Miami.

Media Day
Apologies if the print on this first cartoon is too small to be read. Simply click on the title for a larger version. I would really like the Seattle-geography question were it not for the fact that I don't like the state of Oregon.



Tom Arnold
I blame Microsoft for giving Seattle the "wussy" image.



Seahawks Fan
Do we have to claim this guy? I think he watched one too many re-runs of 8 Mile on VH1.


Non-Sequitur Sidenote
Congrats to the BYU Men's Volleyball team for their win Friday over #1 ranked Pepperdine. Friday's game was also the debut for "Cala" a 20-year old phenom freshman from Cuba (of all places). I'm told he was the #1 recruit in the world. Asked why he chose BYU over UCLA and Pepperdine (among others) he said that the people were "nice." See, nice guys can finish first.

Seahawk Stuff

I'm working up my own pre-game analysis, full of quotes from Jerramy Stevens and (what's his name?) Porter. Till then, here are a few of the best things I've read relating to "the game."

R-E-S-P-E-C-T
Hat-tip to Morgan from LA for this one. I've often wondered at professional athlete's complaints about a lack of respect. According to the ESPN poll my brother showed me this evening, everyone outside the Pacific Northwest (Washington, Oregon, Idaho) thinks the Steelers are going to win. This despite the fact that they are the AFC #6 seed and are playing the NFC #1 seed. You might guess that the Hawks to a man would be complaining about the lack of respect to every member of the press willing to listen to their rants. Not true. ESPN's Chuck Klosterman explains that this "respect complex" is endemic to the NFL. "As far as I can tell, there is not one player on either of these teams (or in the totality of the NFL) who has received the correct amount of respect." Though I think it's more of a pandemic afflicting all professional athletes, his analysis is entertaining.

Sometimes guys are underrated, and sometimes guys are overlooked -- but nobody has ever been respected accurately.

I keep hoping somebody like Antwaan Randle El will blow everybody's mind and say something along the lines of, "Well, we've had our ups and downs this season, but I sense that the rest of the league respects us an average amount. I feel comfortable with the level of our public esteem." Sadly, this never happens.

Earlier this week, someone told Jerome Bettis that certain Seattle players questioned whether he was truly 255 pounds. Bettis said, "They don't believe we are a good football team, either." Now, does Bettis truly perceive this as reality? I can't believe that he does. And I realize the conventional wisdom is that jocks use disrespect as motivation, but that can't be true, either; real people simply aren't stupid enough to trick themselves into insecurity every single week for five consecutive months.

I disagree, I think Jerry Porter really is that stupid.

More Klosterman
His bit on the NFL Experience and the 40 yard dash is great.

More alarmingly, I think a lot of these activities are fixed. They've built a little 40-yard FieldTurf runway (thanks again, Warren Moon!), and they let kids run the 40 and see what time they achieve. However, I think the clock is rigged, because everyone's time was way lower than logic would dictate. If Antwaan Randle El runs a 4.47, I highly doubt some chuberic 14-year-old wearing a "Family Guy" T-shirt is burning a 4.93.

Postmodern Superbowl
As a history major who intends to get an MA in American history, I have to include this last bit from Klosterman's post on Wednesday.

Everyone knows this is the first Super Bowl in the history of the Seahawks' franchise, and everyone knows Pittsburgh was the most dominant team of the 1970s. This being the case, it would seem as though history is on the Steelers' side. Which, of course, means absolutely nothing; it's not as if this game is going to be played by accredited historians (although that would be intriguing).

Fellow BYU students, could you imagine Dr. Mason, Dr. Murdock, Dr. Kimball or any other history professor playing in the game? And I'm beginning to think Klosterman must have studied history because in his Tuesday 6:06pm post he makes reference to post-modern philosopher/historian Jacques Derrida. Shouldn't ________ Porter feel bad that I know who Derrida is but I can't remember his first name?

Hawk Humor
You see, when the Seahawks give interviews, at least they try to be funny rather than ranting ad nauseum about respect, or rather, the lack thereof. For example, there's this piece from the Seattle Times about Steve Hutchinson aka best guard in the NFL. And no Marc, he didn't play for Dallas before he came to Seattle.

Still, the jokes keep coming at Hutchinson's expense.

"I know he went through this phase where he was slicking his hair back like he was some kind of movie star or sex symbol or something," fullback Mack Strong said. "That was pretty funny. He was putting that Vitalis in his hair to make it lay down."

Note that Vitalis is not the same as Cialis, though either way it's pretty funny.

Breakdown in Pass Protection
Then there's the special humor between a quarterback and his center.

Asked who had started the jousting of wits, Tobeck said, "He's got a big mouth. He called me a Hobbit in the newspaper."

It happened when Tobeck tweaked a knee during practice. As he was leaving the field that summer day, Hasselbeck went out of his way to tell a couple of reporters that he wasn't that concerned because, "Hobbits heal faster than humans."

"Just because I'm shorter than most lineman," Tobeck said Tuesday. "That's ridiculous."

No it's not. I have it on good authority from a Lord of the Rings expert that Hobbits do indeed heal faster than humans.

Does anyone care?
I love the Seahawks and on the chairlift at Alta Thursday morning with my brother I tried (and failed) to name every player on the fifty-three man roster, but this next example seems a little ridiculous.

Just to make sure there's no confusion about which team they are pulling for in Super Bowl XL, the mayor and city council in Washington, Pa., voted unanimously to change their city's name to Steeler, Pa., The Associated Press reported Friday.

The name change for the city of about 15,000 people south of Pittsburgh will last through Super Bowl Sunday.

"I know the folks in the state of Washington are rooting for the Seahawks, so we wanted to make sure everyone knows the city of Washington is fully in support of the Steelers," Mayor Kenneth J. Westcott told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

PS. I think I got to about forty, though after I finished with Jerhame Urban, Matt admitted that he wasn't counting like he'd promised.

Last but not least...
I know this post is getting over-long, but let me leave you with a couple parting links. First, a great article from David Locke on why the Hawks are great and will win on Sunday. Lastly there's this appropriately titled article from my favorite Seattle sports columnist, Steve Kelley.

"Thanks, you've been great."

School Choice and Free Markets

Judging from the dearth of negative comments responding to my School Choice piece I'm guessing most (if not all) of my readership agrees vouchers are a good way to reform public education. Pro-union people, where are you?

I recall a conversation in high school with my erstwhile mentor regarding the merits of vouchers. He is intelligent and yet he opposed vouchers for several different reasons. For the life of me I can't remember a one of them. I'll try and recruit a response from him and post it here. If, indeed, it is possible to have an intellectually tenable position opposing vouchers.

The idea of vouchers appeals to me for several reasons. For one, it is a Republican idea (or at least a conservative one), and secondly it is one that benefits the underprivileged. It seems like every attack on Republican programs derives from Marx's call for class warfare. Social Security reform? An assault on the poor. War in Iraq? Fought only by poor, minority volunteers. Tax cuts? For the rich, of course. Vouchers? Here again, they benefit only the rich. These non-sequitur arguments find resonance because they are first expressed by a class of politicians who were born protesting Viet-Nam and Nixon and are then repeated by a media class educated in the revolutionary traditions of the 1960's.

The word "conservative" and phrase "benefits the underprivileged" may seem oxymoronic. It's a sign of the success of the aforementioned class warfare propaganda campaign that makes it so. According to Kevin A. Hassett of National Review, the truth is that since the election of King Conservative--Ronald Reagan--in 1980, "the proportion of the world's population living in extreme poverty has plummeted." This is due to the promotion of free markets that began to take off under Reagan. This success has not been limited to simply reducing poverty. Their (the poor) "relative share of resources has increased as well."

Looking farther back into history, it is possible to cobble together from the literature a measure of income inequality going back to around 1800, and the data present a similar, striking story. World income inequality generally increased from 1800 to about 1980; since then, it has dropped steadily--for the first time in recorded history.

What's even more striking is the market liberalization by formerly communist countries (the ones who really embraced Marx and his redistribution of income) and the success this has achieved.

This market liberalization is reflected in the Fraser Institute's Economic Freedom of the World Report, which measures the degree to which policies and institutions support personal choice, voluntary exchange, competition, and private-property rights. From 1981 to 2001, the world-wide average economic freedom score rose from 5.1 (out of 10) to 6.5. This increase in economic freedom led to the astonishing economic growth that has made almost everyone, especially the poor, better off. Just think of the change in circumstances over the past 20 years for the typical resident of China, India, or the former Soviet Union.

Okay, so here's the link. The same people who oppose free markets, oppose application of market principles to education. In both instances, the poor are the ones who pay the price.

Recently Jeb Bush gave a speech about the "Five Rules for School Reform" to the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. Responding to a recent decision by the Florida State Supreme Court which struck down vouchers, he outlined the keys to successful education reform. In support of his plan to use vouchers as a way to combat failing schools he cited an important study.

Researchers from the Manhattan Institute, Harvard and Cornell have independently studied Florida's private school choice programs. All three studies concluded that the threat of vouchers actually creates the greatest improvement in struggling schools. Given the choice between losing students and raising the quality of education, schools rise to the challenge and make tremendous gains.

The Florida Supreme Court recently struck down one of Florida's three choice programs on the grounds that it created competition for public schools -- the very competition that has helped drive improvement in Florida's schools. The ruling not only threatens the future of the 733 students in the Opportunity Scholarship program, but in varying degrees could also impact the 29,641 other low-income, minority and disabled students who currently use tuition vouchers.

This isn't a question of conservative vs. liberal or Republican vs. Democrat. These economic principles are not limited to a single ideology. That they seem to be so in this case is ludicrous. Anyone who has taken an entry level economics course at any institute of higher learning in any state in the union knows that these principles work. Opposing them because of ideological bias, interest group support (read: teachers unions) or plain ignorance is completely inexcusable

School Choice

I've thought a lot about vouchers, charter schools and other alternatives to public education. When I took American Heritage, Professor Latimer spent a lecture discussing the merits of applying free market principles to education. As with everything else, we were taught and I continue to believe, that competition would bring a better and cheaper product.

Whatever you may think about No Child Left Behind, you cannot say that President Bush hasn't spent enough on education. Not a dollar has been spared in a continued effort to improve public education nationwide. Despite these efforts, schools continue to fail--most of them in the inner city where they are populated by minorities.

I believe that education is the great equalizer. If reparations are to be made for past wrongs--speaking pointedly about slavery and segregation--then I think those reparations need to made through education. I don't know how this is to be done. But I do know that attending failing schools continues a vicious cycle that all too often ends in prison or face down in a gutter.

The simple introduction of vouchers, essentially applying competition to education, rewards successful schools and punishes failing ones. We've all had good teachers. As I think of my experience in public schools, I can think of a few that were exceptional. The flip side of that are all the bad teachers--some of them downright horrible. In public education there's no way to escape it.

Dennis Miller in "The Rants" talks about how teachers get paid worse than "the kid who hauls grit." Its cliched. Teachers don't get paid enough. The truth is, good teachers don't get paid enough while bad ones get paid far too much. Honestly, if teachers weren't getting paid enough there wouldn't be so many of them willing to work for so little. And yet, the low pay fails to attract those dynamic individuals who were born to teach. Why teach when their skills sell for so much more in the private sector?

It is all the more disconcerting that union-backed Democrats in Florida and Wisconsin are so anxious to strike down laws supporting school choice. Especially when it has had so much success. The Wall Street Journal, a champion of school choice, notes the positive gains made in Milwaukee(as always for non-subscribers, email me with requests for a full-text version of the article).

There's no question the program has been a boon to the city's underprivileged. A 2004 study of high school graduation rates by Jay Greene of the Manhattan Institute found that students using vouchers to attend Milwaukee's private schools had a graduation rate of 64%, versus 36% for their public school counterparts. Harvard's Caroline Hoxby has shown that Milwaukee public schools have raised their standards in the wake of voucher competition.

Vouchers, competition, basic economic principles applied to education--these things would give education and therefore America's youth (especially the underpriveleged) a chance to succeed. It should come as no surprise that a self-interested teachers union opposes school choice. Both the good teachers and the bad pay union dues and neither has control over the use of those dues.

Just last November, a measure in California failed which would have forced unions to get member approval for political use of funds. It's worth noting that its opposition was funded almost exclusively by unions whose members probably never had any idea how their dues were being used. And now, thanks to the success (or failure, depending on your point of view) of their campaign against the referendum, they never will know.

With little incentive other than the internal, warm-fuzzy type to keep the good teachers going, eventually they are worn down. Soon they, like their inept or incompetent brethren, begin to hand out the busy work, down the Diet Cokes and look on as their students cheat under their noses and wonder how their teacher, Mr. or Ms. So-and-So got to be such an idiot.

Arrested Development, Darrell Jackson & Student Blogs

Less coherent than some other posts, the topics of this post have nothing to do with each other--other than the fact that they are all things that interest me. I start by responding to a critique of Darrell Jackson (aka the greatest WR in the NFL), move on to propagandizing a TV show I thoroughly enjoy and am afraid is going to get cancelled, and finally, make good on a promise to promote a blog written by one of my students. He didn't ask me to, but since he patronized mine I figured I'd return the favor.

Darrell Jackson
In an earlier column I stated my belief that Darrell Jackson would have challenged Steve Smith for best WR in the league. I stand by that claim. An analysis of his performance in every game this season is not fair to Jackson. In the last few regular season games he was coming back from knee surgery and his play was limited and hardly at 100%. A more fair assessment would be to examine the games before his injury and extrapolate those numbers over 16 games. Seattle's first four games were against Jacksonville, Arizona, Atlanta and Washington. Arizona excepting, all these games featured some of the best defenses in the league. His results? 29 receptions for 376 yards and 2 TDs. At the time of his injury he was #3 in the league. This despite being injured in the fourth game against Washington. Though four games are an admittedly small sample, they do represent 25% of the season and were against some of the toughest defense. Does anyone doubt that his numbers would have improved against the likes of St. Louis, Houston and another against Arizona?

Using the numbers from those four gamesDarrell Jackson would have finished the season with a modest 116 receptions, more than Steve Smith, Chad Johnson, or Santana Moss. His 1504 yards would have given him more than Moss or Johnson and just 59 less than Smith. TDs are harder to estimate, but considering he has scored in 5 of 8 games played, despite limited time in the game vs. Washington and late season games due to injury, it's not hard to project a 10 TD season. 10 TDs would give him one more than both Moss and Johnson and 2 less than Smith.

Arrested Development
2+ years ago my friend Danny from Farmington (UT not CA) started telling me about Arrested Development. He said it was the funniest show on television. Just before Christmas, my brother Matt began watching this show. Soon after, I followed his example and have not been disappointed. There is a subtle sense of humor to the show. For the most part, the comedy appeals to intelligent viewers, which is probably why I enjoy it so much. My favorite character is G.O.B., though they are all excellent with their own brand of humor. Following Buster's example, Matt has taken to calling me "brother." Its the type of humor that finds its way into your daily life.

Despite critical acclaim, and campaigns by groups like "Save Our Bluths," this show is in danger of being banished to the realm of cancellation and cable re-runs. Season 3 was shortened and the final two episodes are to play during the same time slot as the Opening Ceremony of the Winter Olympics in Torino. This is a pretty good indicator of what Fox thinks of this cerebral comedy. Click on the link to "Save Our Bluths" and join the campaign. If you haven't seen an episode of Arrested Development, wake up. It's the best thing going, today.

Phantasmatron
I ashamed to admit it, but I often use the captive audiences of my American Heritage labs to promote my blog. Some students turn into devoted readers adding to the growing community of readers. Unfortunately too few post comments. I think they are scared away by critical comments. I think it was Dennis Miller, in one of his many famous rants, who said that if someone makes fun of you (paraphrasing as usual), you shouldn't run away and hide but get that little weed whacker of a brain going and come up with a rejoinder. After one of my self-promoting sessions in lab last week I was interested to find that one student had posted about the painful experience that is my American Heritage lab.

I was pleased to read a post or three that was well-written and had a unique sort of self-conscious humor. I especially enjoyed his post entitled "Nerd Eat Nerd," though I think it would benefit from a little more material. He has hit upon a humorous truism and the trick of these things is in the knowing details. Fair assessment?

SuperSeahawks

I've taken a lot of flak over the years for being a Seahawks fan. Every year would start out with high hopes and me claiming that finally the Seahawks would get over the hump and finally win a playoff game. 1999, Holmgren's first season in Seattle, ended with a loss to Miami. In 2004 in a game against Green Bay Hasselbeck threw an interception that was returned for a TD. Last year the usually sure handed Bobby Engram dropped a TD in the end zone to lose for the 3rd time that year to NFC West rival St. Louis Rams, again in the first round.

This year it seems the football gods have been appeased as the Seahawks have been released from football purgatory--soon there will only be 6 teams in the NFL that haven't been to the Superbowl. No doubt the drought was brought on by the idiocy of the Ken Behring era (he's the guy who tried to move the 'Hawks to SoCal). It's a stretch, but today I met Ken Behring's grandson's best friend (his claim). I wondered about the coincidence and then wondered if the 'Hawks would be able to shake off the stench brought on by his bumbling ownership. I had to bite my tongue when I found out about the association and simply said that "I'm glad he doesn't own them anymore." Boy am I.

A few game observations.

My score prediction was almost dead on. I only failed to account for one more field goal by Josh Brown. Like the rest of the country, I didn't think the Panthers were going to be that bad. But seriously, they were horrible. And it started with Jake Delhomme.

The QB's
Leading up to the game it seemed like everyone thought he was the better of the two QBs. I watched the Panthers play the Bears and thought that he made lots of mistakes in that game but that the Bears failed to capitalize. Matt Hasselbeck solidified his position as one of the elite QBs in the game. As one friend noted during the game, the only shame is that he isn't given more credit in Madden 2006. Time and again (well, at least in the 1st half when Caroline still thought they could win) he evaded the rush to complete the throw or run for the first down.

Defense
Everyone talked up the Carolina defense. One roommate agreed with the assessment that Carolina had one of the best front four in football. After stopping one rush series on Seattle's first possession they got blown up for the rest of the game. Hasselbeck's ability to avoid the pass rush actually made Peppers look foolish. One writer called him (Peppers) maybe the "best athlete in the game" and another said he had "feakish talent." How then was a 6th round draft pick out of Boston College able to avoid him the entire game? Carolina sacked Hasselbeck twice--one of those came because he held onto the ball for what seemed like half an hour. Those were the only two times they came even remotely close to Hasselbeck. Panthers defense? Seriously overrated. How else do you explain the fact that Seattle's backup QB was able to catch a 28 yard fade from Hasselbeck in the 1st quarter against one-time Seahawk Ken Lucas? Good decision to leave Seattle Mr. Lucas. We needed someone with less talk and more play--and for a heck of a lot less money.

Best WR in the NFL?
Every article I read told me it was Steve Smith. Too bad the Chicago defense and coaching staff were too proud to come up with a scheme to shut him down, if they had we might have blown them out this week instead of the Panthers. Smith had 33 yards receiving and lost a fumble. Our backup QB nearly equalled that total and secured the football. Had Darrell Jackson not missed 8 games this season I promise he would have challenged Smith for the title of best WR in the NFC. Oh, and that punt return for a TD? Give me a break. The officials shouldn't have picked up the flag for that block in the back. They could have thrown it for 2 other illegal blocks besides the one committed by #50. That was just one of a few bad calls. Other than a sloppy TD late in the game it was the only time Carolina came close to sniffing the end zone--mostly thanks to Jake Delhomme.

The Seattle Defense
I'm not going to say they're better than the Chicago defense, but they sure played a heck of a lot better than Chicago did. The Bears looked like they thought they could walk on the field and Carolina would automatically assume a fetal position. Seattle has had to work for everything they've gotten this year and they did so again this week. It is a shame they couldn't have a re-vote for NFL Defensive Rookie of the Year because I've no doubt Lofa Tatupu would win. Few players have done more for their teams--certainly few rookies. He is a leader. He calls the plays and makes sure players are in position and know their assignments. He makes big tackles and had a sweet interception in the 1st half. This guy does it all. That Shawne "my team didn't even make the playoffs" Merriman won the award is a travishamockery.

I read the same numbers as everyone else. Seattle's run defense was one of the best in the league but their pass defense was one of the worst. What far too many experts ignored was the fact that they were missing two of their top corners, their starting FS and another safety for much of the year. Kelly Herndon and Andre Dyson come back and, what's this, they shut Mighty Mouse out of the game and made Jake Delhomme wish he were back in Louisiana hunting something or watching Nascar. What Seattle's defense did to the Panthers is called complete domination. How's this for poetic? Nick Goings lays a hit on Lofa Tatupu but he is the one who has to come out of the game because he was knocked silly. As one friend noted, Tatupu was the difference between SC losing to the Texas T-bones and winning their 3rd National Championship in a row. Think I'm wrong? All Tatupu did last year for SC was lead the team in tackles--the same thing he did this year for the Seahawks.

Shaun Alexander
I know I'm starting to sound like TO, but how is it that Shaun Alexander gets no respect? All anyone could say was how he had been so bad in the playoffs. Apparently getting a concussion doesn't give him a pass for last week's game against Washington. So this week he goes out and rips off a cool 132 yards with 2 TDs on 34 carries--Seahawk playoff records. Yes, I know that's a very short history with very few games, but what other back did better than Alexander this week? He is so much fun to watch.

Many writers picked Seattle to win the game by slim margins but only after trying to talk themselves into picking Carolina. Marc from South Carolina speculated that this was because they all picked them at the beginning of the year and didn't want to look dumb. Either way, Seattle showed that they were the best team on both sides of the ball. Their offense and defense controlled the game. Oh, and Rocky Bernard should have been credited with a 3rd sack. His one-armed take down of Delhomme as he was leaving the pocket was beautiful and made him look like a wimp. Hasselbeck, by comparison, shrugged off several arm tackles to complete passes and rush for extra yardage.

Sunday's win is sweet redemption and as I discussed with Marc, credit really should go to the coaches. Sure, John Fox is the "blue collar" coach of a team described by the same adjective. But couldn't they come up with something new? Linebacker Leroy Hill saw their little bubble screen coming a mile away and blew it up so fast the ball hit him in the back of the head. Seattle coaches put both the offense and defense in position to make plays and the players responded. On defense they shut down the run, contained and abused Steve Smith and drove Jake Delhomme crazy--an admittedly short trip. On offense they picked up all but one blitz, and spread the ball around to 8 different WRs. Oh, and they rushed for 190 yards against the #3 rush defense in the NFL. Did I mention that Seattle completely dominated Carolina?

Let me finish up with a request. The Seahawks have never been to the Superbowl and neither have I. If any of you have any type of connection or just "know a guy" and can get a ticket or four, please let me know. Talk about a dream come true. Joining the 12th Man Seattle fans in Detroit as the 'Hawks take on the Steelers would be positively paradisiacal. Email me at onlifeandlybberty@gmail.com. Thanks.

Matt Hasselbeck: Best QB Still in the Playoffs

Every day I read the sports page of the three Seattle area newspapers. The Seattle P-I, Seattle Times, and Tacoma News-Tribune all have their strengths. Amidst all the articles (including a Sports Illustrated cover in the Northwest) lauding Matt Hasselbeck's virtues as a QB was this gem reporting little known facts from his offensive linemen.

"Things you didn't know about Matt Hasselbeck (but his linemen do)" by Molly Yanity, reproduced here in full.
__________
There are tidbits about the Seahawks quarterback that only his offensive linemen know. They share them with the P-I:

Walter Jones

"As a person, he looks out for us. He's one of those rare, great guys who really takes care of his offensive linemen. He is always trying to have fun and always trying to keep us in a good mood. It's important to him -- just keeping you up. If you need a laugh or a pick-up, you know you can go to Matt. He's a joker and plays practical jokes, but it's not just about football. You can go to him with anyone."

Robbie Tobeck

"The truth be known, Matt is the biggest dork on the team. Seriously. He's the biggest dork. He's a likable guy still, but Matt is good at the obvious joke. There again, it's like, 'Ha ha, everyone already thought of that.' He's always late with the punch line. But he tries hard. He tries really, really hard and that's kind of what makes him a dork. And, I'm not sure if you knew this about him, but Matt is also bald."

(Hasselbeck heard about the interview and informed this reporter that team president Tim Ruskell will be throwing Tobeck a surprise retirement party when the season ends.)

Chris Gray

"I hear he's particular about his nails. I'm not sure if he goes so far as to get manicures, but he clear-coats them and is into his cuticles and stuff."

(Hasselbeck actually interrupted this interview and showed off his hands. "I don't paint my nails! During the season last year, I'd put nail-strengthener on my middle finger (on his right hand) because I'd keep that nail long to help with spirals. I don't have manicures, geesh!" Gray nodded with a knowing smile at this interruption.)
__________
The game will be played this Sunday at 3:30pm PST (that's 4:30pm MST for those of you math challenged readers) at Qwest Field and will be broadcast on Fox. I promised the football gods my firstborn if they deliver the win and go on to the Superbowl. You can't beat that kind of karma.

Seahawks 31, Steve Smith 14

For the last four years I have had a season's pass to Alta. One of those years was spent teaching. Monday, with the old man and uncle in town and hoping to avoid holiday crowds, we skied Powder Mountain. The snow was great and we didn't wait in a single lift line. If you haven't skied Powder Mountain, give it a try. Tuesday we skied Alta and they told us Monday was the biggest crowd they'd ever seen. Apparently the parking lot was full and they were directing people to the Snowbird lot.

Also, a short plug for a place that has treated us well. The Deep Powder House at Alta is an excellent place to get your boots custom fitted. This is the single most important piece of ski equipment. Having the right fit is the difference between enjoying the sport and snowboarding. For this reason I highly recommend custom boot fitting. Matt and I have both had minor adjustments made to our boots (in my case they fixed a buckle, in Matt's they adjusted the fit in the heel) and both times the service was performed well and best of all for college students, they wouldn't let us pay them. These were simple fixes--custom boot fitting will undoubtedly cost good money--but they were performed quickly and well. Their service is impeccable and their fixes have worked. Custom boot fitting is expensive, but worth it. Of all the money spent on ski gear, money spent getting the boots to fit just right will be the most important and satisfying.

I have no idea how many points the rest of the Panthers will score, but Seattle will win. I respect Delhomme (after all, we share the same first name) and I know Smith will get his, but the Panthers have no running game. They've got Goings going for them, but Seattle has the 4th best run defense in the league. They still miss Ken Hamlin in the secondary, but all three top corners will be healthy and on the field. Seattle's DTs run four deep and the team led the league with fifty sacks. Chicago's defense, while great, looked uninspired. Carolina had better not expect the same from Seattle.

Last week's win came without Shaun Alexander. Don't worry, according to reports I have read, there will be no lingering effects from his concussion and I hope that means no more crazy TD dances on the sideline (Morgan, thanks for the tip). Seattle's O-line dominated the Redskins and will do the same with Carolina. Hasselbeck was great, showing he can carry the team, but the real story of the game and the season is the play of the offensive line. They are the best in the league. With Alexander back, watch for them to set the tone by running the ball again and again. The best way to beat Steve Smith is to keep him off the field.

Apologies for the long delay between posts. I'm in the middle of a research project involving altitude, snow, and mountains. Keep checking, keep posting comments, and pass the word about the blog to your friends, family, and if you think it's no good, people you don't like.

Everybody Loves Romney (Mitt)

A Mormon as President? Yeah, right.

At least that's the opinion held by many, including the humble dictator of this blog. Last week James Taranto of the Opinion Journal wrote an article based on his interview with Mr. Romney. Currently Republican Governor of the state of Massachusetts, Mr. Romney gained fame through his help in resurrecting the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City.

How or why the most liberal state in the Union would ever elect a Republican governor (let alone four in a row) is beyond this writer and is a potential topic for another post. In 1994 Mr. Romney ran against king liberal himself, Ted Kennedy. As anyone who has watched the Alito hearings knows, Ted Kennedy is still seated in the Senate meaning Mr. Romney lost that '94 election. Boding well for Mr. Romney's political fortune in Massachusetts and other Blue states is the fact that he won 41% of the vote--more than any other Kennedy challenger.

Mr. Taranto, whose opinion holds vastly more water than mine, thinks Mr. Romney's chances are better than zero.

Mr. Romney could be an attractive presidential candidate. His sunny disposition puts one in mind of Ronald Reagan -- he laughs easily and smiles almost continuously. He is a governor, as were four of the past five presidents; but he can claim more international experience than most state executives. In addition to his work on the Olympics, he has served on the federal Homeland Security Advisory Council, chairing its working group on intelligence and information sharing.

Though not a war superhero like Sen. Kerry, Mr. Romney can claim achievements in business, politics and the Olympics--an event, you'll recall, that helped heal the nation and show a strong American front in the months following 9/11.

He is a fiscal conservative, helping Massachusetts to avoid tax increases in the lean years following the recent recession. Asked about social policy his response is similar to Pres. Bush. He personally opposes abortion but will not actively campaign to overturn Roe v. Wade. He supports President Bush and his views regarding the war on terrorism and our enviableness in Iraq. His politics seem centrist enough to appeal to many Americans--but he may not make it as far as the general election.

The problem with Mr. Romney's presidential campaign is not so much his appeal to American liberals, but his ability to appeal to conservatives--especially the right wing--those who will actually turn out to vote in the primary election.

Many of his beliefs mirror those of the religious right. Informal polls show he would do well in early primaries in states like New Hampshire and Michigan. But there is a large amount of anti-Mormon sentiment among the religious element of the Republican party, among others. Their opposition could prove detrimental to his early candidacy. The degree to which he is able to overcome this anti-Mormon sentiment will have a great deal to do with his early success.

I once spoke at length with one of his former colleagues at Bain and Co. He told me of an informal speech given early in his 1994 Senatorial campaign. After Mr. Romney gave a little speech, thanking his colleagues for their donation to his campaign, he opened the floor for questions. Among the first questions was one about his position on abortion. After thinking for a moment, Mr. Romney said that it was a tough question, a tough topic. He said, paraphrasing, that it was difficult in the way that the issue of plural marriage had been difficult for his church. His colleague observed to me, and I tend to agree, that answering one controversial topic by raising another one at least as sticky (if not more so), was probably not the smartest politics.

Religious prejudice will be a huge mountain for Mr. Romney to climb in 2008. As Mr. Taranto notes,

[the] crucial question will be whether Mr. Romney's religion is a handicap. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is indigenous to America, but many Americans view it with suspicion. In a 1999 Gallup poll, 17% of those surveyed said they would not vote for a Mormon for president, far more than said the same of a Jew (6%) or a Catholic (4%).

At the very least, it should bring a great deal of attention to the church and its values and beliefs. One school of thought holds that any press is good press. I guess his candidacy, successful or not, should make it easier for the next Mormon to run for President or any other political office.

iPod Ear

If you didn't already own an iPod, you probably got one for Christmas. Failing that, you probably bought yourself one as a New Year's gift like my friend Craig. Since about the 3rd generation (Summer 2003) the iPod has begun to be the ubiquitous collegiate accessory. As one of the first dozen or so at BYU to own one, I pretty much know everything there is to know about iPods. But I didn't know this.

A great article (subscription required: email me a request for full text and I will forward you the article) in yesterday's Wall Street Journal calls attention to one of the results of the ubiquitous iPod: hearing loss. What Jane Spencer calls "iPod ear" is beginning to become more and more common. The problem with MP3 players is on the surface no different from earlier problems with Sony Walkmans and other portable CD players. The difference, says Ms. Spencer, is the duration of listening that accompanies the new technology. With longer playlists and longer lasting batteries, the exposure to loud music grows and is resulting in earlier instances of hearing loss.

Hearing specialists at centers such as the House Ear Institute in Los Angeles, Children's Hospital Boston and the American Academy of Audiology say the effect they are seeing now may be only the beginning, because accumulated noise damage can take years before it causes noticeable problems. "We're only seeing a few teenagers with hearing loss at this point," says Brian Fligor, director of diagnostic audiology at Children's Hospital Boston. But, he adds that many others may have subtle hearing loss that they have yet to recognize, "and by the time they do, they'll have done substantial damage."

You may not notice the damage done to your ears now, and that is one of difficulties in battling hearing loss.

Any idiot knows that going to a rock concert will leave you with a ringing, sort of dull sound in you ears. This has obviously dulled the sense of hearing. Typically, after a few hours, hearing returns to normal and one is able to hear everything as before The Killers latest show.

There are two ways that noise exposure leads to hearing damage. Brief exposures to extremely loud sounds, like gunfire, can cause permanent damage. But consistent exposure to even moderate-level loud sounds wears out the hair cells in the inner ear, which are responsible for acute hearing abilities. When these cells are damaged by noise exposure -- like a loud concert -- they typically recover after two days of rest. With repeated exposure to loud sounds, however, the hair cells' ability to recover weakens. Eventually the hair cells die, leading to permanent hearing loss.

A 2004 study at Children's Hospital Boston sought to set a safe exposure time for recreational listening by adapting the government standards for workplace noise. According to NIOSH, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the safe exposure limit is 85 decibels for eight hours a day. (A typical vacuum cleaner emits 85 decibels.) Every time the volume level increases by three decibels, the safe exposure time drops by half.

Every study cited in this article stresses the importance of avoiding the short, loud noises (bull horn, gunshots) and prolonged exposure to above normal or average sounds--iPod listening falls into this category.

I'm not familiar with their music, because, unlike many of your parents, my father listened to Motown rather than Led Zepplin. A recent blog post by Pete Townshend of The Who showed the consequences of listening to music for extended periods.

Mr. Townshend warned the iPod generation about the dangers of hearing damage, and said he blames his own severe hearing loss on years of using studio headphones. "Hearing loss is a terrible thing because it cannot be repaired," wrote Mr. Townshend. "If you use an iPod or anything like it, or your child uses one, you MAY be OK… But my intuition tells me there is terrible trouble ahead."

This article came as a bit of a wake-up call. I sometimes use listening to my iPod as an excuse to avoid talking to people as I walk across campus. But seriously, if like me, you listen to your iPod as you ski or do other athletic activity, be careful. I think the advice about being able to hear normal conversation with the earbuds in and the music on is good. Try that.

Dateline: Rossland, B.C.

Rose Bowl
So I was a little off with my Rose Bowl prediction. It also seems BYU isn't the only team that can't tackle. Unfortunately that's the only thing they have in common with USC. Vince Young was clearly inspired by losing the Heisman to Bush. The announcers fell all over themselves praising his play--and he was good--but I don't know if he'll be able to make it in the NFL. The zone-read play and option will not work in NFL where defenses are much faster. I could be wrong, but he could be another Michael Vick--good for a highlight or two a game, but unable to work the West Coast Offense. Otherwise, congrats to Texas, hook 'em horns.

Fantasy Football
I should have thanked him sooner, sorry Robbie. This last week concluded the season for my fantasy football league, broke phi broke. Though I finished 3rd in the regular season, I pasted R Jones in the Championship 69-49. Thanks for playing.

Canadian Observations
I don't want it to seem as though I don't like Canada. I think its a great country. I have a good friend from Toronto, though I haven't heard from her in a while... Anyway, the skiing is great.

Specifically, Red Mountain. Size wise, this is the smallest of the three we have skied, but the snow conditions have been by far the best. My brother tells me Red Mountain has the finest glades skiing in North America. I've only skied 15-20 resorts but it is definitely the best glades skiing I've skied. The people are nice and the burger with carmelized onions was delicious. One thing I've noticed is that a high percentage of Canadian women have pierced noses and lips. I can't figure out what that's about.

I've read about the same speech in both the National Review and Best of the Web and it fits my Canadian theme so I figured I'd better reproduce it here. This is the National Review version.

Here is a news item from the Friendly Giant to Our North--a country large and consequential enough, you would think, that a person who had once served as its minister of defense and deputy prime minister would be possessed of more than the average endowment of gravitas [link added for my American Heritage students still reading my blog]. Think again. Paul Hellyer, who held those positions under Prime Ministers Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau, recently told an audience at the University of Toronto [is this a serious school?] that George W. bush is planning for an intergalactic war against space aliens--you know, the ones in UFOs, which vessels are, averred the former Sec Def and Deputy PM, "as real as the airplanes that fly over your head." Warming to his theme, Hellyer accused the Bush administration of planning a forward base on the moon, the better to counterattack the extraterrestrials. "The time has come," he concluded,"to lift the veil of secrecy, and let the truth emerge, so there can be a real and informed debate, about one of the most important problems facing our planet today." The speech received a standing ovation. So now we know: Hatred of George W. Bush , in combination with the enervating effects of living in the world's most boring country, can send you barking mad.

So what's the excuse of left-wing nuts in the States? One thing the University of Toronto has in common with liberal schools in the U.S.--all a speaker has to do is mention their hate for George W. Bush (even if the speech asserts the existence of ET) and they will get a standing ovation. This guy really should meet Michael Moore, though I'm afraid of the freak of a love-child movie this union would produce. Fahrenheit Area 51 anyone?

Dateline: Fernie, B.C.

The first night we drove eight hours to Golden, B.C. to ski Kicking Horse. I'm told they have the 2nd or 3rd highest vertical feet in North America. And they needed it. They never get much snow and apparently they have even less this year. Before skiing Kicking Horse, I'd never before ridden a chair down the mountain. With more rocks than snow on the lower third of the mountain everyone was doing it. The upper third of the mountain had fairly good coverage and Kicking Horse in general had some of the best in-bounds territory we'd ever seen.

After Kicking Horse we drove to Fernie. This Canadian Rocky Mountain resort (Kicking Horse was in the Selkirks) had the benefit of more snow--though it was wetter owing to the lower elevation and latitude, and higher temperature.

Tomorrow we will ski Red Mountain. I've skied Canada before, but coming back has reminded me of several things. The metric system is a pain when driving and deceptive when it comes to snow depths. Fernie's 165cm base doesn't even approach Alta's 115 inch base--Alta has nearly twice as much snow. Talking to some Canadian college kids in the tub at the end of the day we realized that they knew everything about the States and football but we couldn't care less that there were more Canadians on some NHL team in Florida. Apparently they cancelled the season (maybe it was last year?)? Anyway, we didn't know or care. Poor Canadians, they were proud of the fact that the exchange rate was the best it has been in years--and the Canadian dollar is still only worth roughly $0.85 U.S. Also, good luck buying Diet Cherry Coke--they don't sell it up here. I will give them one thing; every place we have stayed has had wireless internet.

Thanks to that wireless internet I've been able to keep up on at least some of my reading. The recent firing of Sonics Head Coach Bob Weiss reminded me of a topic I've thought a lot about: hiring and firing of coaches at every level in every sport. I think, I hope, that when a coach is hired, those doing the hiring base it on clearly (and easily) identifiable principles. Winning seems to be the derivative of so many different factors--things like various statistical categories, player-coach relationships, personal conduct, etc., and at BYU they had policing, enforcement, and education of the Honor Code. When they make a decision to fire a coach, I think they need to evaluate their original position and ask themselves what has changed, fundamentally, to give justifiable cause for the firing. "Black Monday" in the NFL and other high profile, forced exits just seem to be made on a whim with very little underlying cause. I agree that the won/loss column is the ultimate arbiter at the pro, college and increasingly (and unfortunately) even the high school level. But I have to think that winning and success are based on some underlying foundation or principle. Thoughts?

USC 41 Texas 24 - I think UT will hang with USC for the first half. In the 2nd half SC will kick it up a notch the way they have all season and show the pretenders and the nation what it means to be the best. Here's to 3 National Championships in a row. Go SC!

Resolution: Health Care

The rising cost of Health care seems to be the topic of the day. In any given Gallup Poll questioning Americans about their Top 10 concerns, health care will undoubtedly be found in the top three. Open any newspaper or other favorite periodical and you will find a headline decrying the rising costs associated with staying healthy. Inevitably the article will speak of a family in Cincinnati or some other all-American city. It will be a family of four with both the mother and father employed. Somehow, because of a problem with “the system/program” they will be making enough money to be excluded from Medicare but not enough to pay for their own health care costs.

The article will inevitably speak of how there are forty-five million (45 million!) Americans just like them who are without healthcare or insurance of any kind. This is where the article takes a decidedly more opinioned tone and the author typically critiques the plans of President Bush and his administration. The reporter is editorializing when she or he should be reporting—-just the facts please, ma’am.

I am not employed by the Bush administration in any fashion, and do not always agree with his policies, but call this a wholehearted endorsement of his Health Savings Accounts.

Health Savings Accounts are based on the same principles as many of Bush’s other “ownership society” measures. Give the control or "ownership" to the people. It is based on the assumption that individuals will make rational choices to benefit themselves--similar to basic assumptions made by economists. The premise of this plan is that people can set up a tax-free account devoted to payment of costs associated with their health care. Into this account they can place some $2000 (the number is still not set) to be used for health-related costs--prescriptions, doctors visits, etc. Instead of subsidizing HMOs by not taxing, they are subsidizing individual-controlled Health Savings Accounts. The idea is, that having set up an HSA, the individual will then purchase insurance which will cover costs beyond the $2000 in their HSA. This insurance will cover catastrophic costs and not the normal day-to-day costs associated with health insurance. Now, because the individual is in control of this money and how it is spent, every cough and ache does not require visit to the doctor and generic drugs become good enough.

There are essentially two issues causing the ever-rising costs of health care: problems with the way insurance is used and the out of control costs resulting from frivolous lawsuits. I'll leave Tort Reform for another day and treat the two problems of insurance as usual. Currently the government taxes wages, without getting into the minutiae of how it works, it's enough to know that these taxes affect both the employer and employee. At the same time the government does not tax payment in the form of health care. Because of this employees see are larger portion of their salary in the form of health care--this because of its (health care's) rising costs. Most health care--government run, business run, whatever--usually require payment of a $10 or $20 deductible. After this payment, the patient/participant can then receive whatever services outlined by the insurance company. Because there is nothing limiting this consumption and because this is a form of their income, the employee/patient/participant has incentive to use and abuse this health plan.

This abuse points a flashing bright neon sign at the fundamental problem with government run health programs and HMOs. Because the money is not owned by anyone and payment levels are required, there is no incentive to keep costs down. The slightest ache or pain merits a visit to the doctor and when there is no extra cost for the full barrage of testing, the patient orders them all. This problem is what economists call “tragedy of the commons.” A common area, owned by no one but used by all is maintained by none and taken advantage of by everyone. HSAs solve this problem by putting the individual in charge of all basic health care and invokes the help of insurance only in cases beyond the means of the $2000 socked away in the HSA. What’s more, any unused funds in the HSA can be rolled into the next year with the same level of contribution allowed. This makes it another way for people to save for retirement with payment of tax on HSAs deferred until future withdrawal.

All this begs the question, when HSAs make so much sense, why don’t we know more about them? I believe the questions has two answers. In the first place, the press has not taken the time to educate themselves about HSAs. They are complicated (though not as complicated as the new prescription drug plan) and difficult to first understand and then explain. Its much easier to write an article about a suffering family of four in Cincinnati (though suffering less because of Carson Palmer)--that's the type of thing that sells papers and appeals to the politics of idealistic young liberal reporters. Lastly, President Bush needs to do a better job of explaining his plan to Americans. If this requires circumventing an unsympathetic press corps, so be it.

Health care costs and problems will not go away. If anything, it will continue getting worse--unless something is done. HSAs are one way to attack the problem, tort reform is another and will be the topic of a future column.