30 January 2006

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.

25 January 2006

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?

23 January 2006

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.

21 January 2006

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.

20 January 2006

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.

13 January 2006

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.

11 January 2006

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.

05 January 2006

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?

03 January 2006

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!

01 January 2006

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.

28 December 2005

Skiing, Seahawks, Scorpions & Optimism

Even if you don't like the Seahawks, stick with me on this one. Its not completely devoted to sports--some of this post is about games.

Seahawks
The Seahawks are rolling and still I'm forced to respond to detractors (those few still not on the bandwagon). Sure, Peyton and the rest of the starting crew didn't play the whole game. Yes, many starters on defense were injured and did not play. All of this ignores the fact that the 'Hawks were up 14-3 before Manning went to the bench. And if you want to talk about injured defensive starters, how about this stat: the Seahawks defense was missing 3 CBs, 2 LBs, 1 FS, and 1 DT. For more, check out this great article from Mike Sando of the Seattle Times.

Skiing
If you're not someplace warm (like the Carribean) I hope you spend at least some of your break on the slopes. According to my brother (who gives me hourly snow reports), the entire western US is supposed to get a lot of snow for the next week. My home mountain, Alta, always gets more than everyone else. Colorado isn't bad (its definitely big) but I'll take Little Cottonwood any day of the week--especially Tues., Thurs., and Sat. next semester when I don't have class. I wont be able to Ski Utah! till I get back for school, but next week I'll ski Fernie and Red Mountain for the first time and give you a full report.

Optimism
Last week I wrote a fairly scathing review of the BYU v. Cal game and BYU's season in general. I've taken a little heat from some of you and feel a little bad. On the whole I am very optimistic about BYU football. Coach Mendenhall has replaced the malaise surrounding the team with direction and purpose. I think the players believe Bronco and believe in him. Next year the defense will be better--those still there will improve and newcomers will help. Cameron Jensen will no doubt lead a much improved defensive unit. On the offensive side of the ball, the best news is that most of the O-line will return. These guys were definitely the strength of the team. From 2002-4 the lack of depth and experience led to a very weak O-line. With Kuresa as an anchor and the dynamic Reynolds brothers duo, we now have a great line. Where they couldn't seem to block anyone before, now the QBs have time to go through their entire progression and have time to throw it off to their check-down WR if everyone was covered. Curtis Brown is back and he will be even better and Beck will provide leadership and experience. Next year we should win the conference.

Scorpion Watch
Some time ago I introduced something I called the "Scorpion Watch." It was a story in the news that related to the principle taught in the tale of the Scorpion and the bull-frog. This was a tale my roommates of the 105-106 used to explain nearly every situation in life. The first post was about conservatives and taxes. This one is a little more pop cultural. Check out this article by Diane Mapes of the Seattle Times.
(Note: because it's in their archives you will have to register--it's free!--to access it)

26 December 2005

Post-Christmas Bullet Points

I'm told the week after Christmas is one of the biggest shopping weeks of the year. It's almost a holiday in its own right. I'm addicted to eBay, but some other online retailers are pretty good too. Among other things, I figured I'd post links to a few of my favorites.

Every year after Christmas Nordstrom has their Men's Half-Yearly sale. If you're in the Seattle area my friend Sarah works the sale at the Southcenter Nordstrom in Tacoma. Stop by and buy something; I'm sure she'd appreciate the commission. If you live in a Nordstrom-deprived area, click here to shop online.

If, like many of my friends (Ammon, Morgan, Brandon) you are a new professional, then you might want to check out the men's sale at Brooks Brothers. Sometimes they provide additional discounts for things purchased online.

Though they tend to cater to a little older demographic, some of the Filson-made bags and leather goods are great. Check out Filson (like Nordstrom, another Seattle based company) and Mulholland Brothers.

My brother will probably get mad at me for sharing a family favorite, but if you're looking for a parka and don't want to wear The North Face like everyone else, check out Arc'Teryx. Between my dad, brother and me we own 4 different Arc'Teryx parkas and love them all. Also look at Cloudveil (their "Troller" glove is great), Eider, and a new one Matt discovered the other day--Norrona.

I've been asked by several people to identify a good do-it-all ski. Though my research has been admittedly limited, I have pointed most to this ski, the Atomic M:EX. With 84mm at the waist, this is a good all-mountain ski. In fact, though I'm told they changed a lot, it is the descendent of the Atomic R:EX--a ski my dad owns and one I have skied. Variations of the R:EX won ski of the year from different publications for 3-4 years in a row. It is a heavy ski with a heavy binding but it is great in the crud and wide enough for the powder and yet not so wide that you can't ski it well on the groomers. It is very stable at high speeds. $400 is not a bad price for skis and bindings.

In the days leading up to Christmas several people asked me for book recommendations. Both Trevor and Morgan provided great suggestions. I make no attempt to create an exhaustive list here (at least not yet), but these are a few suggestions if you are looking for a book to buy with your Barnes and Noble gift card. I will never recommend a book I haven't read.

Short Novel: "The Dante Club" by Matthew Pearl. If you enjoy mysteries and the such you will like this book. Pearl is a great writer and here he tells a great story weaving literature ("The Divine Comedy" by Dante Alighieri) and history (Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and others in Boston circa 1865). I don't read many novels but this one was great.

Long Novel: "The Pillars of the Earth" by Ken Follett. This is an author known more for his Cold War-era spy novels but the historical fiction of "Pillars" is awesome. This is a long book that tells the tale of the construction of a cathedral in England. No one writes people better than Tolstoy, but Follett's characters in "Pillars" are compelling.

Biographical History: "The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt" by Edmund Morris. Teddy Roosevelt is one of my heroes and Morris really brings him to life in this, the first of a two part biography. This half of Roosevelt's bio tells about his childhood, his days as a bronco buster, a rancher in the Dakotas, experiences at Harvard, in the New York State legislature and as commander of the Rough Riders and their role in the Spanish-American War. Great book.

As always, comments related to good books, good skis, or any other topic are invited. Thanks. Let me know about skis and outdoor gear/apparel, I'm thinking about doing a more extensive list of recommendations.

24 December 2005

A Few Christmas Thoughts

Like any other family, mine has several Christmas traditions. Some of those traditions are more foundational and religious than others. Many are common to families across the America. From Christmas treats (I also like banana popsicles from Blue Bunny)to Christmas trees (we get ours Christmas Eve and it is always a challenge to get the best tree for free and legally) we enjoy all things Christmas. One of my favorite traditions is gift wrapping. I pay my sister to wrap my gifts to the family (including hers). After Econ 110 and lectures on the law of comparative advantage, I learned there is a better reason to have her do it than the fact I flat hate wrapping gifts--thanks Dr. Pope. Oh yeah, and my brother, sister and I watch National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation before going to bed and yes, we know all of the words.

On Christmas Eve we have a family devotional. Our family, like yours, reads from Luke 2, and reflects on the birth of Jesus Christ. We often sing Christmas hymns and sometimes, if enough extended family is present, we'll act out the Nativity scene while someone reads from the aforementioned text (Matt is usually the donkey--his role comes from a proud heritage of Lybbert's reprising donkeys, I understand my dad was once the donkey, I'm usually one of the wise-guys).

For the last few years we have added another text to our Christmas devotional; we read a piece from the Op-Ed page of the Wall Street Journal. Since 1949 they have printed the same editorial by Vermont Royster. It is a beautiful column devoted to the gift of liberty given us by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. This blog is rarely devoted to religious topics, but they are never far from my mind as I consider some of the more serious material on which I opine. Even if you don't add this editorial to your family's Christmas Eve devotional, read it, and share it with someone else. Better yet, refer them to my blog and they can read it here (or buy a copy of today's Journal and read it there). Either way, Merry Christmas.
__________

This editorial was written in 1949 by the late Vermont Royster of the Wall Street Journal and has been published annually since.

In Hoc Anno Domini
December 24, 2005

When Saul of Tarsus set out on his journey to Damascus the whole of the known world lay in bondage. There was one state, and it was Rome. There was one master for it all, and he was Tiberius Caesar.

Everywhere there was civil order, for the arm of the Roman law was long. Everywhere there was stability, in government and in society, for the centurions saw that it was so.

But everywhere there was something else, too. There was oppression -- for those who were not the friends of Tiberius Caesar. There was the tax gatherer to take the grain from the fields and the flax from the spindle to feed the legions or to fill the hungry treasury from which divine Caesar gave largess to the people. There was the impressor to find recruits for the circuses. There were executioners to quiet those whom the Emperor proscribed. What was a man for but to serve Caesar?

There was the persecution of men who dared think differently, who heard strange voices or read strange manuscripts. There was enslavement of men whose tribes came not from Rome, disdain for those who did not have the familiar visage. And most of all, there was everywhere a contempt for human life. What, to the strong, was one man more or less in a crowded world?

Then, of a sudden, there was a light in the world, and a man from Galilee saying, Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's.

And the voice from Galilee, which would defy Caesar, offered a new Kingdom in which each man could walk upright and bow to none but his God. Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. And he sent this gospel of the Kingdom of Man into the uttermost ends of the earth.

So the light came into the world and the men who lived in darkness were afraid, and they tried to lower a curtain so that man would still believe salvation lay with the leaders.

But it came to pass for a while in divers places that the truth did set man free, although the men of darkness were offended and they tried to put out the light. The voice said, Haste ye. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness come upon you, for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.

Along the road to Damascus the light shone brightly. But afterward Paul of Tarsus, too, was sore afraid. He feared that other Caesars, other prophets, might one day persuade men that man was nothing save a servant unto them, that men might yield up their birthright from God for pottage and walk no more in freedom.

Then might it come to pass that darkness would settle again over the lands and there would be a burning of books and men would think only of what they should eat and what they should wear, and would give heed only to new Caesars and to false prophets. Then might it come to pass that men would not look upward to see even a winter's star in the East, and once more, there would be no light at all in the darkness.

And so Paul, the apostle of the Son of Man, spoke to his brethren, the Galatians, the words he would have us remember afterward in each of the years of his Lord:

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

23 December 2005

There's always next year, right?

Its one thing to be able to say we got beat by a better team, but I am tired of losing games because of our own mistakes.

I guess my post about how to win the game came a little too late. I should have posted it when the coaches were putting their game plan together. How many pass plays did we run before handing it off to CB? I know, I know, they called a run play and then Beck audibled to a pass. But that was only one play. We knew we needed to put together long offensive series. Why then did they come out and throw the ball every down going 3 and out on two consecutive series? They should not give Beck so much latitude to do what he wants. He is not Peyton Manning.

I love the fact that Nate Meikle plays hard. He may be the ugliest football player this side of (insert the name of the ugliest football player you know), but gosh he gives it his all. However, do we really want him getting that many touches? We have to find a way to get the ball to Curtis

The good football teams tailor their schemes to fit their talent. I don't know, maybe some rich alumni who helps pay Bronco's salary is forcing the team the sling the ball around the field because that's how they used to play. Maybe that's why Coach Anae seems to ignore what is obvious to even casual observers--we win when Curtis does well. Yesterday I included a link to an article that showed that when CB got over 100 yards rushing the team was 5-1. Considering we've only won 6 games I think that's significant.

I understand that we don't have the personnel to field a good defensive unit. I don't blame the players for that. What I cannot understand is why we are unable execute a routine tackle. It was so bad yesterday that the ESPN analysts said it was some of the worst tackling they had ever seen. At one point they showed a stat that showed 174 yard receiving. Of those, 173 came after the catch. This means they caught the ball close to the line of scrimmage and then ran--a lot. With extra time to plan for Cal our coaches should have put our offense in a better position to succeed.

And it's not just me who is critical of their tackling. I will readily admit that my analysis is worthless. However, I think a quick anecdote will prove enlightening. Last February I was giving myself a tour through the student-athlete center. While walking down the stairs I saw someone watching video from the last season. Wondering who would be watching football video that time of year I stepped in and introduced myself. The man was a scout for an NFL team and because he requested, I wont mention his name or the team. I sat there and talked to him for the next 2.5 hours while we watched film. I picked his brain about everything. I mentioned that there were many of us, (casual, untrained observers, but big fans) who thought that BYU wasn't very good at tackling. Before I could even get the question out of my mouth he immediately agreed, saying that they were among the worst tackling units he had ever seen in 30+ years of coaching and scouting. My opinion doesn't count for anything, but how about his?

Among the inexplicable were the 11 penalties in the first half. I have been a leading proponent of the whole officiating-conspiracy theory. One team manager said there were four penalties called against BYU last year that didn't get called in any other game (read: obscure). But that is no excuse for the ridiculous amount of penalties in one half of football. If you believe officials have a bias against you and are going to call the game tight, for the love of football, play cleaner than clean, play squeaky clean.

I think Bronco is a good coach. Every player I talk to is very complimentary and even those who had questions in the past have become Bronco believers. Who then do we blame for breakdowns in what Bronco has identified as his biggest principles? The mistakes that stood out--penalties and poor tackling (we'll ignore the dearth of run plays)--were the difference in the game. One comment I read in a message board last night noted that BYU teams as far back as Lavell have been poor tacklers. I am at a loss to explain this. Do they not teach tackling in practice? Or are the poor fundamentals being taught at the high school level? Maybe we can just blame the entirety of high school football in the state of Utah (I'd love to draw that conclusion being that I'm from Washington and think our football is better) but then that wouldn't explain the incredible job Kyle Whittingham has done with his defenses over the years--typically populated by BYU's state of Utah leftovers.

In typical form--one friend called it a microcosm of the season--BYU almost won despite their poor performance. They were just teasing us. If people wonder why so many of us have become cynical about BYU football, it's because they have become so adept at giving the game away.

22 December 2005

To Win, BYU Must...

This one is obvious--or at least it should be--give the ball to Curtis Brown. Just do it. Don't think about how many points you could score if you'd just throw it on every down. Don't think about how Todd Watkins might be able to change his label from hugely overrated to just mildly overrated by having a career game (I'm not even sure Todd is the best WR on the team, I think by the time Michael Reed graduates you will have forgotten there ever was a player named Todd Watkins who every once in a great while caught the deep ball if it were thrown just right). Don't think about how John Beck throws a nice deep ball. Please, in the name of the football running-god, just give the ball to CB.

If there were any doubts in anyone's mind, cast 'em out, Curtis is the best player on the offense--heck, he might be the best player on the team. If we want to win this game he needs to get thirty to thirty-five touches--at least twenty-five of those should be run plays. And please, don't run the ball out of the shotgun every time (by the way, has anyone watched Reno play this year? they have a sort of hybrid shotgun that allows the RB to line up behind the QB at a depth similar to the I-formation, thoughts?). We have two fullback-type RBs in Fahu Tahi and Manase Tonga, have John Beck line up under center and let them lead block, running the ball like everyone else in college football. And then, play-action-pass. In case anyone forgot, we have a really good offensive line and they have proven that they can run block. They need to do a lot of that today.

Cal has got the type of offense that could get in a groove and control the game. It wont matter that we can score in under 27 seconds. Cal will get the ball and they will run and they will run and they will run some more and then you will look up at the screen and see that there are only 2:30 left in the game and you are down 24-3. Want to help our defense with its porous secondary? Run the ball. It's really not that complicated. Give the ball to CB twenty-five times and Tahi ten to fifteen times. If we run the ball forty times I guarantee a win.

Today is a chance for John Beck to prove he's not just a stat-book hero. There is no direct correlation between Beck throwing for piles of yards and TDs and a win. There is, however, a direct correlation between rush yards and attempts and wins. My favorite win of the year--the win against Colorado St.--is a perfect example of the good things that happen when you run the ball.

21 December 2005

Why Conservatives Are Smarter

With finals on I missed this piece from the Opinion Journal. It addresses an issue I have thought a lot about: the chimera of liberal intellectual superiority. Though conservative on most issues, I at least understand that there can exist an intelligent opinion opposite mine. My problem with liberals is the attitude that "if I were only as intelligent as they, then I would see the world as they see it." Alas, most conservatives are dumb (or are dumb people conservatives?) and will remain in ignorance of the obvious liberal solutions to the world's problems. You know, like immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

The following is an excerpt from a piece by Jonathan Rosenblum with analysis by James Taranto (one of those dumb conservatives).
__________
Writing in the Jerusalem Post, Jonathan Rosenblum of Jewish Media Resources ponders the careers of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice-designate Sam Alito, and in the process makes an excellent point about Ivy League conservatives and liberals:
Because of their minority status it is far more difficult for conservative students to entertain the illusion that all smart people think like them. They are exposed to many obviously bright young men and women whose opinions on almost every issue vary radically from their own. . . .

Being forced to recognize that there are different points of view helps make bright young conservatives such good debaters. They learn early on the limited persuasiveness of shouting at someone with whom they disagree, "You're an idiot." Of necessity they have to develop the ability to cast their arguments in ways that appeal to those starting from very different premises. . . .

Liberals can be wonderful people, and boon companions, but they often have a hard time dealing with people of opposing views--especially when they cannot dismiss them out of hand as idiots. Too often they have spent their entire adult lives surrounded almost entirely by those who think just like them, and it comes naturally to dismiss those of other views as intellectually or morally challenged.
This is true beyond the Ivy League, as we noted just after the 2004 election. With liberalism the dominant ideology in the news and entertainment media, it is virtually inescapable to any American who doesn't go to great lengths to insulate himself from it. Big-city liberals, by contrast, can easily filter out conservative ideas, and thus need contend only with their own prejudices. Thus conservatives are smarter than liberals--not necessarily in terms of native intelligence, but of understanding the world around them.
___________

Regarding his conclusion that conservatives are smarter... I don't necessarily agree. I think Mr. Rosenblum confuses intelligence with being open minded. The stereotype holds that conservatives are, by definition, more narrow minded than their liberal, progressive brethren. I think that exactly the opposite is true. There is a very narrow, liberal ideology, and anything that does not fit that paradigm is discarded offhand, literally labeled the less-intelligent (even dumb) or less enlightened (owing to their Enlightenment roots) point of view.

At least most conservatives don't think competing opinions are dumb. I certainly don't.

20 December 2005

Top 10 Christmas Movies of All-Time

I've already written this post once, and, thanks to Firefox, I get to write it again. I know I have advertisements for Firefox on my site, and though they are better than Internet Explorer, I still prefer Apple's Safari. At least it doesn't crash when I'm nearly finished creating a post, wasting at least a half-hour of work.

1. National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation
In the genre of Christmas films Cousin Eddie is possibly the best character. I also think he is a composite of several members of my extended family. If you've only ever watched this on tv, be prepared to fast-forward a couple parts

2. A Christmas Story
Red Rider BB guns, the neighbor's hounds, the smiling Christmas duck, chocolate ovaltine--this movie has it all. And you can't beat the tongue on the flagpole--that's the type of humor that appeals to all ages.

3. Scrooged
We love watching the angel/ghost beat the snot out of Bill Murray's character. If you like Groundhogs Day or What About Bob? or Ghostbusters you'll love Bill Murray in this movie. Ditto on the self-edit, the tv version cuts out some of the unnecessary crass material.

4. It's a Wonderful Life
I'm sometimes sentimental but never sappy. This is one you can watch with the whole family.

5. Elf
This movie is good, but not great. I particularly enjoy the scene where Will Ferrell tries to put the star on the tree. Also, answering his father's office phone, "Buddy the Elf, what's your favorite color?" is classic and oft repeated. Speaking of oft repeated quotes from Will Ferrell, can we please be done with everything being "kind of a big deal?" Sure, I think more cowbell is just as funny as the next guy, and I know Ferrell is popular because even the dumb get his jokes, but still, can we let this one die, please? It's overused in the way "alrighty then" from Ace Ventura Pet Detective was abused. Apologies to those of you too young (especially my frosh American Heritage students) to remember that movie or the quote or, if you do, don't remember why it was funny. You probably don't remember because it wasn't that funny in the first place. But, in ten years when some little-read blog writes about Anchorman and how everyone used to wait around for the obligatory reference to something being "kind of a big deal," you'll wonder at the fact that you thought it was so frickin hilarious. And then, you'll know what I mean.

6. The Santa Clause
My sister wanted me to include this one. And yes, I did watch Home Improvement growing up, and loved it.

7. Santa Claus The Movie
Before there was Elf there was this movie where an Elf leaves the North Pole because he doesn't fit in. This movie has Dudley "need I say" Moore? Seriously. Need I?

8. White Christmas
I first watched this movie because Chevy Chase's character (Clark Griswold) referred to it in his famous rant near the end of Christmas Vacation. Watch this one with grandma.

9. Home Alone
What is it about pain that gets such big laughs? Suspend your hate of Macauley Culkin and watch this one with your younger cousins or neices and nephews--that way you can either laugh at the movie or their response.

10. A Muppet Christmas Carol
My favorite version of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. This one should also appeal to your friends of the Angry Left. I don't know why I wrote that, it just felt right (no pun intended).

18 December 2005

Everything Seahawks + Doug Jolley

I just finished watching my DVR (one of the Top 10 Greatest Things Ever) recorded Seahawks game. Sure, they only beat the lowly Titans 28-24, but they could have had a let-down against the Chargers at home. Way to go Dolts. At least Edgerrin James got one TD to help me beat Kenty in our first round fantasy football playoff matchup.

I'm tired of people (my roommates) saying that Matt Hasselbeck is no good. Have you watched him play a game? Have you looked at the stats? With what do you back up your ridiculous critique of Matt Hasselbeck? He leads one of the top offenses in the NFL--just today he was 21-27 for 285 yards and 3 TDs. He will never throw it 40 times a la Peyton Manning--not with All-World RB Shaun Alexander making defenses look silly. Defying all comprehension is the fact that Eli Manning, Michael Vick, and Drew Bledsoe all have more Pro-Bowl votes than Hasselbeck--despite the fact that he leads them all in nearly every statistical category. Darrin Beane of the Tacoma News-Tribune wrote a great article about Hasselbeck.

Speaking of Shaun Alexander, today's 26 carries, 172 yards and a TD continue his march toward MVP. Still think he's slow? Don't tell that to Adam "Pacman" Jones who just flat couldn't keep up. Check out this article from Danny O'Neil of the Seattle P-I.

One last Seahawk shout-out. Lofa Tatupu will win Defensive Rookie of the Year. I know, that was a game winning play by Shawn Merriman against the Dolts, but he can't compare with Tatupu. Lofa's stats read like a Pro-Bowl LB. 93 tackles, 4 sacks, 3 INTs and a TD--this guy is leading the defense like a seasoned vet. Greg Bishop of the Seattle Times reports.

A few parting shots for the Seahawk doubters. Matt Hasselbeck has been getting it done without his top two WRs for most of the season. Bobby Engram just returned a couple games ago and today's game vs. the Titans was Darrell Jackson's first game back (big ups for the TD, D-Jack). And the Seahawks defense? They are missing two starting LBs (mis-reported by Fox's broadcast team - Jaimie Sharper and D.D. Lewis), their starting FS (Ken Hamlin), and two starting CBs (Andre Dyson & Kelly Herndon). Despite all the injuries they still destroyed the Eagles and 49ers, though their lack of depth obviously showed against the Titans.

Next up: the Dolts on Christmas Eve. All I want for Christmas is the for 'Hawks to beat the Colts.

One last thing... Congrats to BYU product, Doug Jolley for making ESPN's Top 10. He is a good guy and a good football player.

17 December 2005

Something for Everybody

With finals done I can finally return to making regular posts. Apologies for the lack of content this last week. I've been writing, its just been devoted to research papers. One, for my German history class, required fifteen pages. Two days and thirty-nine citations from thirty-five different sources later I (are you like me?) turned in my paper thiry minutes before the deadline.

On Thursday at the Christmas party of a mutual friend, I spoke with Kelsey Nixon of kelseyskitchen.com about her tv spot, website and budding career as a chef. I promised a good write-up (I've eaten a few of her desserts and they are delicious) and link to the website. Congratulations are in order on her plans to spend the summer at an elite French (oxymoron?) bed-and-breakfast, learning French and teaching the culinary arts.

I will, however, have to disagree with her and several others at the party regarding Martha Stewart. Abrasive though she may be, she most certainly did not commit a crime worthy of prison time. She definitely didn't commit the crime they were investigating--insider trading.

Bad news (?) for Mariners fans. Bill Bavasi is the M's GM and we still haven't figured out how to convince Billy Beane to leave the A's. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that our offseason will be "highlighted" by the signings of Carl Everett (a team player?) and Jarrod Washburn. Steve Kelley's comments pretty much sum it up.

For those of you who still haven't traveled home, please, do so safely. My blog has such a small readership I can scarcely afford to have those few of you killed off by a sideswipe from a semi.

Stay tuned for posts on everything from the Seahawks (yes, again), Iraqi elections, a list of the Top Christmas Movies and (dare I mention?) a recent article entitled, "Friends with benefits. Buddies. Booty calls. Is this what dating has become?" What might surprise you most is that it was not written for the Daily Universe.

08 December 2005

Money = Happiness

Finals got you down? Try bidding and winning something on eBay. There's nothing like a new piece of ski gear or favorite team memoribilia to lift your spirits. And it looks like there is economic evidence to suggest that money can indeed buy happiness.

Arthur C. Brooks, associate professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs, explains "economists aren't so sure" about the idea that money can't buy happiness. "They note that people with a lot of money tend to express a higher subjective happiness than people with very little. According data from surveys by the National Opinion Research Center, for example, people in the top fifth of income earners are about 50% more likely to say they are "very happy" than people in the bottom fifth, and only about half as likely to say they are "not too happy."

Not only can money buy happiness, but there is evidence to suggest a correlation between increases government taxes and spending and decrease in overall happiness.
__________
Perhaps you're unconvinced. In fact there is another explanation for unchanging happiness levels over time which is rather less supportive of income redistribution. As incomes rise, so generally do levels of government revenues and spending, and there is evidence that these forces work against personal income on the overall level of happiness. For example, a $1,000 increase in per capita income is associated with a one-point decrease in the percentage of Americans saying they are "not too happy." At the same time, a $1,000 increase in government revenues per capita is associated with a two-point rise in the percentage of Americans saying they are not too happy. In other words, not only can money buy happiness, but it may be that the government can tax it away as well.

But beyond earning, taxing and spending, there is an even clearer link between money and happiness: charity. The evidence is unambiguous that donating money (and time) is one of the best ways to buy happiness. People who donate to charity are 40% more likely to say they are "very happy" than non-donors. Psychologists have even tested whether charity makes people happy using randomized, controlled experiments -- the same procedure used for testing pharmaceuticals, except that, instead of administering a drug to one group and a placebo to the other, researchers randomly assign one group to act charitably toward another. The results are clear: Givers of charity earn substantial mental and physical health rewards, even more than do the recipients of charity -- empirical evidence that it is indeed more blessed to give than to receive.
__________
Though money may be in short supply, there is good news here. The type of happiness he is referring to can be "bought" with service. Whether you are busy with finals or busy with work or busy prepping for the next powder, take a few minutes and give a little. This type of investment pays happiness dividends.

StatCounter