Electoral College Elimination

The Current Electoral Vote Predictor 2004 site points out the following scenario:

A reader pointed this out to be. Suppose the EC is tied 269 to 269 and the House deadlocks 25 states to 25 states. This is exceedingly unlikely, but just suppose. Then the Senate gets to choose the vice president. Also suppose the new Senate is divided 50-50, a very real possibility. Then the sitting vice president, Dick Cheney, gets to cast the deciding vote, electing himself as the new vice president. In the absence of a president, Cheney would be acting president for four years. This is not likely to happen because the Republicans are virtually certain of controlling at least 26 state delegations in the House. Still, scenarios like this one support the case for electoral college reform.

Jumping to Conclusions

Interesting exchange regarding Kerry's criticism of the administration's "incredible incompetence" on securing weapons in Iraq:

"Now the senator is making wild charges about missing explosives when his top foreign policy adviser admits, quote, 'We do not know the facts,' " Bush said. The military is investigating the missing explosives, he said, "and a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief."

The Kerry campaign responded to Bush's remarks through Gen. Wesley Clark, who said the president knew all about jumping to conclusions.

Bush "jumped to conclusions about weapons of mass destruction," jumped to conclusions about the mission of the war being accomplished in May 2003, and "jumped to conclusions about how we had enough troops on the ground to win the peace," Clark said.

By doing all of that, Clark said, Bush "broke faith with our men and women in uniform. He has let them down. George W. Bush is unfit to be our commander in chief."

(emphasis mine) And Senator Joe Biden

issued an extraordinary rebuke of the administration. Because of missing explosives, "my kid and a lot of other kids might get their ass over there and get blown up by these because of their civilian incompetence," he said, his voice rising to a shout.

NFL Week 8 Predictions

Doc's immortal words:

The Falcons are 5-1 behind a strong running game (ranked 3rd in the league) and a solid defense. The Chief defense is weak, especially against the run, ranking 23rd. Their offense is founded on the running game as well, but the Falcons have the top ranked defense against the run. The Chiefs just do not stack up well against the surging Falcons.

Um..... I'm speechless.

Onto this week.

Cardinals @ Bills
The Cardinals have picked up their game in recent weeks, winning two of their last three. They have been competitive in every game they've played this year. Their defense has been prolific at causing turnovers. The Bills have rarely been competitive and are prolific at giving turnovers. The Cardinals have not won away from the desert this year, but I will go with the upset. Prediction: Cardinals.

Lions @ Cowboys
Detroit, after losing every road game for 3 years, is undefeated on the road. Dallas has struggled everywhere. Last year's top ranked defense has fallen apart. The offense, despite some good statistics for Testaverde, has not done much either. The Lion injury woes are lessening and their offense is fielding more of its starters, like rookie WR Roy Williams. With a balanced offense and an improving defense, the Lions will add to Parcells' headaches. Prediction: Lions.

Jaguars @ Texans
The Jags are off to a surprising start, leading the AFC South after last week's surprising win over the Colts. Byron Leftwich continued his streak of impressive statistical outings, putting up 300 yards passing and a QB rating of 116. However, as I pointed out last week, he still isn't putting up touchdowns. For all his yards last week, he only threw two touchdowns. The Texans have their own explosive offense, with Carr getting touchdowns through the air and rushing. The difference between the two teams is that Jacksonville has a better defense and a healthier running game. Prediction: Jaguars.

Colts @ Chiefs
The Chief running game awoke last week with a vengeance. Eight rushing touchdowns! Wow. Against an anemic Falcon offense, a rush-heavy offense will get the job done. Against the Colts, who can put up points faster than just about anyone, they will have to get the job down through the air as well, something they have struggled with this year. Prediction: Colts.

Giants @ Vikings
The Vikings have the best offense in the league, a worthy successor to the offenses Kurt Warner used to lead in St. Louis. Today he leads the more human Giant offense, which will struggle to stay close enough for respectability. Prediction: Vikings.

Bengals @ Titans
Have the Bengals turned the corner? Their defense did a good job against a capable Bronco offense on Monday night. The Titans are struggling, especially with McNair hurt. If the Bengals can avoid an emotional letdown after such a big win last week, they should be able to handle Tennessee as well. Prediction: Bengals.

Packers @ Redskins
This game has national and international implications: "In the previous 15 elections, if the Skins have lost their last home game prior to the election, the incumbent party has lost the White House. When they have won, the incumbent has stayed in power." This should be a good matchup, at least in one direction. The Packers possess the second ranked offense in the NFL and they will go up against the top ranked defense of the Redskins. (The other direction has the 27th ranked Washington offense against the 21st ranked Green Bay defense.) With Grady Jackson back in the lineup, the Packer defense should be better against the run than they have been so far when they have had to field an undersized defensive line because Jackson has been out. The run has been the core of the Redskin offense; the passing game has underachieved with Brunell making numerous mistakes. When the Packers can slow the game down and play their game, as they have been able to do the last couple of weeks, they are still an effective team. They struggle when forced out of their run-oriented game plan in shootouts, but the low-rated Redskin passing game will not do that. Prediction: Packers.

Ravens @ Eagles
With Jamal Lewis on suspension, the Ravens will rely on the steady arm of Kyle Boller to lead them to victory. Boller's overpowering 86 yards passing last week was enough to get Baltimore past Buffalo. But the undefeated Eagles are a tad bit better than the Bills. While the Raven defense will do its thing and slow the Eagle offense, it won't be anywhere near enough. Prediction: Eagles.

Falcons @ Broncos
With a solid run defense, the Falcons should....what am I saying? A week after getting mauled by Priest Holmes and Derrick Blaylock, the Falcon defense must face the rising star Reuben Droughns. A struggling Michael Vick must face a strong Bronco defense. Prediction: Broncos.

Panthers @ Seahawks
Before this season, I would have predicted this to be one of the games of the season. Now, the Panthers are doing little, devastated by injuries to key personnel. The Seahawks have struggled with three straight losses. The collapse against the Rams has left them in a daze. But against a weaker opponent, they should get back on track. Prediction: Seahawks.

Patriots @ Steelers
Many have been predicting this is the week the Pats finally fall. This could be the toughest game the Patriots will face this year. What sets New England apart from the rest of the league is pre-game preparation. No team comes into a game better prepared for the opposition than New England. Their coaching staff breaks down film, reads tendencies, strengths, and weaknesses, and comes up with a game plan to exploit the weaknesses and avoid the strengths. The key to beating New England is to morph your game into something completely unexpected. This is why the unheralded Panthers put such a scare into New England in the Super Bowl. The were completely unprepared for a pass-heavy attack from Jake Delhomme. Crennel and the defense were forced to improvise a game plan, and a defense that manhandled the pass offense of Peyton Manning's Colts got beat play after play. The Steelers this week field a highly regarded rookie quarterback in only his fifth start. The Patriots will not have too much in the way of film to break down, so the defense will not have its normal preparation level, which makes it a tough game. The Steeler defense, while not the Steel Curtain or the dominant unit of the mid-90's which was almost as good as the Steel Curtain, is playing well under prodigal coordinator Dick LeBeau. The Steeler running game is looking more and more like a Steeler running game again, after last year's attempt to emulate the Ram passing attack. The Patriot defensive front is vulnerable to the run. But the Patriot offense will adapt to whatever the opposing defense gives them and they will move the ball. As successful as Big Ben has been so far this season, he has never faced a defense the likes of New England with its confusing fronts and disguised blitzes. That defense confuses Peyton Manning. Ben won't know what hit him. Prediction: Patriots.

Raiders @ Chargers
The Chargers are perhaps the biggest surprise of the 2004 season. No one, including me, expected anything out of them except another fruitful run at a top pick in the draft. Instead, the Chargers are in second place in the division, just a game back of Denver. Of course, the team has usually started fast under Schottenheimer before collapsing. (Last year, they just got straight to the collapse.) The Raiders are not doing much of anything. Prediction: Chargers.

49ers @ Bears
With Rex Grossman out, the Bears are so bad they even make the 49ers look good. Prediction: 49ers.

Dolphins @ Jets
Miami finally won a game. Let's pat them on the back and get back to the real football world. Prediction: Jets.

Last Week: 7-7
Season: 58-44

Planning for the Iraq Occupation

AFP reports

In the lead-up to the war, the Central Intelligence Agency was reportedly so convinced Iraqis would warmly greet US troops that it proposed smuggling hundreds of small American flags into Iraq ahead of the invasion to give Iraqis something to wave at the soldiers.

The CIA was then planning to capture the event on film and beam it throughout the Arab world, The New York Times reported last week, citing unnamed intelligence officials.

Oh my. Any questions on why the occupation has gone so badly?

New Florida Vote Scandal Feared

BBC News reports,

A secret document obtained from inside Bush campaign headquarters in Florida suggests a plan - possibly in violation of US law - to disrupt voting in the state's African-American voting districts, a BBC Newsnight investigation reveals.

These guys will stop at nothing! The report goes on to say they saw a private detective secretly filming every early voter in an African-American section of Jacksonville.

Political Wire references the dead letter office at georgewbush.org. The emails referenced by the BBC report are to be found there.

Fight Them There or Fight Them Here

One of the themes of recent George Bush election commercials is the idea that if we do not fight terrorists where they live, we will have to fight them here. The approach options are posed by the president in an either/or scenario. Fight there (Iraq, Afghanistan, wherever) or fight here (Trade Center). By positing this either/or scenario, the ads are reminiscent of Cheney's comments earlier in the campaign where he tried to argue, through implication, that a Kerry victory would open the gate to another terrorist attack here in the US. The president's argument is that, under his leadership, we will fight the terrorists over there, wherever that is. The implication of this is that we will not fight them here. This is pretty despicable.

American Conservative's Scott McConnell Endorses Kerry

Scott McConnell of the American Conservative has reluctantly endorsed John Kerry for president. I found this comment interesting:

It is, instead, an election about the presidency of George W. Bush. To the surprise of virtually everyone, Bush has turned into an important president, and in many ways the most radical America has had since the 19th century. Because he is the leader of America’'s conservative party, he has become the Left’s perfect foil——its dream candidate. The libertarian writer Lew Rockwell has mischievously noted parallels between Bush and Russia'’s last tsar, Nicholas II: both gained office as a result of family connections, both initiated an unnecessary war that shattered their countries’' budgets. Lenin needed the calamitous reign of Nicholas II to create an opening for the Bolsheviks.

Actually, the whole article is pretty good.

How can any conservative claim to actually like Bush? Even in the editorials in the American Conservative that endorse Bush (their editors were unable to come to a consensus on who to endorse, so they have a series of endorsements from each editor) start by blasting him. As Pat Buchanan essentially says, conservatives don't have much of a choice. Bush is terrible, but Kerry would be worse. "Assuredly, a president who plunged us into an unnecessary and ruinous war must be held accountable. And if Bush loses, Iraq will have been his undoing. But a vote for Kerry is more than just a vote to punish Bush. It is a vote to punish America."

Republican Switchers has numerous articles about conservatives dumping Bush and endorsing Kerry.

Stem Cell Research

Jean Swenson writes, regarding Christopher Reeve and the promises of embryonic stem cell research,

I believe he and many of us have been misled by the promises we keep hearing about embryonic stem cells being the key to curing Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes and a host of other maladies. After supporting spinal cord research for years and exploring the possibilities, I believe adult stem cells, not embryonic, are far more likely to produce successful treatments.

Although we hear plenty of general testimonies that play on our emotions, there appears to be almost a blackout of accurate scientific information about stem cells.

Ms. Swenson is herself a quadriplegic, so hers is not some abstract theoretical view. It impacts her and her own future.

This is a political season, and the issue of stem cell research funding has become an issue in the presidential campaign. Politicians and celebrities rave about the fantastic possibilities for cures that could emerge if only embryonic stem cell research was funded more. These cells will cure, according to the politicians and celebrities, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, paralysis, and a host of other ailments. Newsweek puts it

Embryonic-stem-cell research, while still in its infancy, has the potential to treat or perhaps even cure the more than 100 million Americans who suffer an array of illnesses and conditions, from heart disease to spinal-cord injuries. Scientists say the cells could be one of the greatest revolutions in modern medicine.

John Edwards, Democratic nominee for Vice President, promises, "If we do the work that we can do in this country ... people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."

As a scientist (certainly in a field far removed from medical research on stem cells, but a scientist nonetheless), I am bothered when science becomes politicized and politicians try to tell us what science is. As in other areas, the politician will take the parts that support their point of view and just ignore the others. This is how speculation becomes a "slam dunk" when presented by politicians. These politicians play on our emotions to get our vote. (Politics has evolved from "a chicken in every pot" to "read my lips" to "Vote for me and we will cure Alzheimer's forever and the paralyzed will walk again!" What does 2008 hold? "Let's cure AIDS!"?) In the quest for our vote, the politicians are not going let little things like facts and truth get in the way.

From what I have read on the subject, the science is far less certain than the politicians and celebrity fund-raisers would have the public believe. The reality is the research on the use of embryonic cells is in a very early stage. According to the National Institutes for Health,

Scientists have only been able to do experiments with human embryonic stem cells (hESC) since 1998, when a group led by Dr. James Thomson at the University of Wisconsin developed a technique to isolate and grow the cells. Moreover, Federal funds to support hESC research have only been available since August 9, 2001, when President Bush announced his decision on Federal funding for hESC research. Because many academic researchers rely on Federal funds to support their laboratories, they are just beginning to learn how to grow and use the cells. Thus, although hESC are thought to offer potential cures and therapies for many devastating diseases, research using them is still in its early stages.

So talk of all the future applications is, at best, pure speculation. Such speculation may be useful in writing research grant proposals, but is not a sufficient foundation for policy making. (Also of note is that President Bush, blasted by supporters of expanded research for having banned research into embryonic stem cell therapy, is the one who established federal funding for the research in the first place.) The research has only been going on for a few years, far too little time to fully understand the potential.

Supporters of the administration policy point to the potential applications of adult stem cells, as does Ms. Swenson. The principal argument against these cells is that they are not "pluripotent", which refers to the ability of the cell to give rise to any cell type in the body. Adult stem cells are referred to as "multipotent", meaning they can give rise to some cell types, but not all. The greatest potential for treatment comes, obviously, from pluripotent cells. But, the NIH admits that partially specialized stem cells, like adult stem cells, "may be more flexible than previously thought."

Supporters of expanded embryonic cell research want to simply ignore the ethical considerations involved in such research for the sake of the over-hyped promises of scientists trying to wring funding out of whoever will give it and politicians desperate to get your vote. We cannot do this for a line of research still in its infancy. Certainly, we must continue this line of research. But we must also continue research into other types of stem cells. When the science gets more fully grounded in experimental findings, perhaps the embryonic cell hype will translate to reality. In that case, we will then have to address the ethical questions and decide how to proceed. But we must not put the cart before the horse, as the saying goes.

President Bush provided a compromise between science and ethics when he established federal funding for embryonic cell research. While, perhaps there can be tweaks to the system to open some more lines, that is the proper approach to pursue for now. Research is progressing. The time to consider a massive redirection on funding is when, and if, the research ultimately validates the hype.

NFL Week 7 Predictions

Ah, the sweet smell of success. I have spent the week basking in the warm glow of an 11-3 week. Plus, of my three fantasy teams, one is in first place and another in second place in their respective leagues.

Onto this week.

Bills @ Ravens
This game will not be exciting, with the already underwhelming Raven offense lacking Jamal Lewis going against the mistake-prone, unproductive Bills. If you love defense, this one's for you since both teams have strong defenses. The Bills will make mistakes and the Raven defense will punish them for them. Prediction: Ravens.

Chargers @ Panthers
The Chargers are off to a surprising 3-3 start. At some point, teams and observers have to start taking them seriously. They field the second best run defense in the league. Their run offense has been good for several years behind LT, but now they sport a good passing game to complement it. In the last three weeks, Brees' worst game was last week where he posted a "mere" 91.7 QB rating. They have now added a pretty good wide receiver in McCardell. The Panthers have been decimated by injuries and look nothing like the team that went the Super Bowl last year. Prediction: Chargers.

Eagles @ Browns
The Eagles are running roughshod over every one. They are undefeated and have won every game by double digit margins. The Browns, on the other hand, have struggled. The offensive line is providing little protection for Jeff Garcia, who has not had a very good receiving corps to throw to. Prediction: Eagles.

Jaguars @ Colts
The Colts won the first matchup of these two teams. The Jag defense was able to slow Manning and the Colts offense to just 24 points, but their low-scoring offense only put up 17. Leftwich's yardage production has exploded in recent weeks, averaging 324 yards, after averaging a mere 130 per game in the first three games. (It is worth noting that the Jaguars lost two of those three games where Leftwich was putting up the yardage.) But the touchdowns haven't increased correspondingly. The Colt defense will give up a lot of yards to Leftwich again, but if he can only put up one touchdown pass, the Jags won't have a chance. Prediction: Colts.

Falcons @ Chiefs
Last year, the Falcons started horribly on route to a 5-11 season whereas the Chiefs exploded out of the gates on the way to a 13-3 season. This year, both are going in the opposite direction. The Falcons are 5-1 behind a strong running game (ranked 3rd in the league) and a solid defense. The Chief defense is weak, especially against the run, ranking 23rd. Their offense is founded on the running game as well, but the Falcons have the top ranked defense against the run. The Chiefs just do not stack up well against the surging Falcons. Prediction: Falcons.

Rams @ Dolphins
Picking games involving Miami is pretty easy. Go with the other team. Prediction: Rams.

Titans @ Vikings
This one should be a shootout, like the Titan game against the Packers. Under normal circumstances, the advantage would clearly fall to Minnesota's far superior offense. But Randy Moss, who has caught 8 of Daunte Culpepper's staggering 18 touchdown passes, may be out of the game. That will make the game closer, but the Vikings are winning in large part because they have developed a deep receiving corps. Prediction: Vikings.

Lions @ Giants
Last week, I expressed surprise about the low ranking of the Lion offense. I understand why. They have been hit hard by injuries. Look at their starting lineup in week 1 at running back and wide receiver. None of those guys are starting now, because they are all injured. So Joey Harrington is throwing to a team of backups. The Giant offense hasn't exactly been explosive, but they are winning games and looking pretty solid on both sides of the ball. Prediction: Giants.

Bears @ Bucs
The Buc offense is not doing much, but it is doing something. The Bears are dead in the water because of injuries. Prediction: Bucs.

Jets @ Patriots
These two teams sit undefeated (the only two in the AFC) and tied for the lead in the AFC East. The Jets haven't beaten anyone of note this year and will face a whole new level of competition. They will really have to step it up against a team far superior to any they have faced this year, much as Seattle has had to do after a fast start. The game is about positioning for the division and conference leads. The Patriots are far more experienced in big games than New York. While New England will undoubtedly lose a game or two this season, their games are about as easy to pick as Dolphin games. Go with New England. Prediction: Patriots.

Seahawks @ Cardinals
Seattle started the season as an early favorite to appear in the conference title game against Philadelphia, but have since dropped two straight games against quality opponents. The Cardinals are playing every game tough, but don't have the horses to win those close games. Seattle will step it up this week and get back on track. Prediction: Seahawks.

Cowboys @ Packers
The Cowboys have struggled this year finding a rhythm, but they still field the 8th ranked passing offense. As all Packer fans know, the Packer secondary has been scorched all season. On the opposite side of the field, the Packer passing game is ranked 2nd in the league, but they face the 9th ranked pass defense. Green Bay will need to get its running game going, but with the Cowboy passing game following the well-worn path to the end zone, that will be difficult. Prediction: Cowboys.

Saints @ Raiders
The Saints have been their normal inconsistent selves. Winning some games impressively and lose some just as impressively. The Raiders have been a model of consistency. Bad, but consistent. With Deuce McCallister back at running back for New Orleans, they should be able to get back to the impressive winning version of the team. Prediction: Saints.

Broncos @ Bengals
Before the season began, I said

I was very critical last year of Cincinnati's decision to draft Carson Palmer. Kitna had delivered a solid season in 2002, and there were pressing needs on a pathetic team. (Imagine Terrell Suggs, now in Baltimore, playing in Cincinnati.) Now, the Bengals must pay the price by demoting Kitna, who had better numbers than Tom Brady last year, and going with an untried first-time starter. The best case scenario is that Palmer struggles early getting used to the pro game, adjusts by mid-season, and starts to play solid football for the last 4-6 weeks of the season. Unfortunately by then, his struggles in the earlier part of the season will have created enough losses to continue the Bengal streak of non-winning seasons.

Sadly, my prediction has born out, so far. The Bengals have relapsed to the team they were before Marvin Lewis, sitting a lowly 1-4 under Palmer's leadership. Palmer has a QB rating of 59.6 with 4 touchdowns and 8 interceptions over five games. In the last four weeks, Palmer has 2 touchdowns and 7 INTs. (For comparison, Kitna had a season QB rating of 87.4 in 2003 with an average of 1.625 TD's/game and 0.9375 INT/game, which scale out to 8.125 TDs and 4.7 INTs over 5 games.) Dreaded adjectives like "inept" are creeping back into commentary on Bengal play. The Broncos, on the other hand, are one of the most underrated teams in the NFL. I think they are the main challenger to New England for supremacy in the AFC, not Indianapolis. Denver may not have the dazzling offense Indy has, but their solid offense is well complemented by a strong defense. Their running game would challenge the Patriots. The Bengals will need a lot more Pepto after this game. Prediction: Broncos.

Last Week: 11-3
Season: 51-37

Kerry Will Scrap Color-Coded Terror Alerts

Political Wire references a Rolling Stone interview with Kerry where he says he will scrap the silly color coded alert system.

Bush/Kerry Family?

It appears President Bush and John Kerry are cousins. (Link found from Political Wire.)

Electoral Vote Predictor

I don't know how accurate this will turn out to be, but the Current Electoral Vote Predictor 2004 site is a cool tracking of poll results in each state, with predictions on electoral vote results. The electoral college graph, a tracking of each candidates total predicted vote over time, is an interesting little chart too.

Cost of Health Care

This is an election year, so both major candidates for president are talking health care again, proposing bold new plans to control costs and provide more people with coverage. The focus for both Senator Kerry and President Bush is to control costs of insurance. But that is not the same as the cost of health care, and the difference is extremely important for any long term approach.

Health care costs can be represented in a triangle:



On a visit to a health care provider, the patient is charged for co-pays and deductibles. The provider bills the rest to the insurance company. The insurance company in turn bills the patient a premium for the policy, a premium priced to cover the claims paid out for members plus a profit margin. All three components are part of the cost of health care and must be taken into consideration. The candidates for political office focus on the blue line in the drawing, namely the premium the insurance companies charge their members. Both plans focus on ways of reducing that premium and stabilizing it over time. Properly stated, the candidates want to address the cost of insurance, not the cost of health care.

What is overlooked by both plans is the cost of the actual health care service, i.e. what the provider bills the insurance company. This is the true cost of healthcare, and it is skyrocketing. Routine visits to a doctor can cost $200. A visit to the emergency room even more. These costs are rising quickly, and they get passed on to the insurance companies. Basic economics tells us that as the costs to the insurance companies rise, the premium charged to members must rise. Market forces from employers providing coverage to their employees restrict how quickly the premium can rise. Since the insurance companies cannot recoup their costs through higher premiums, what we see is insurance companies reducing their coverage and raising deductibles for the same or higher cost. I've certainly seen this in my own coverage, where I now have deductibles for care today for which there were no deductibles a couple of years ago, while my premium has increased.

Government plans may control the growth of the premium on a policy. However, this cycle of diminishing coverage will continue unless the true cost of healthcare is controlled. Down the road, we may see more Americans covered by insurance, but getting less healthcare because the insurance covers less. Addressing the cost of insurance without addressing the cost of care is, at best, a short-term band-aid on a growing problem.

What are some of the causes of this skyrocketing cost? Here are a few reasons. The reader will note the vicious cycle represented in these reasons. (I have referenced some sources on this question above via links; I will primarily reference a document from Blue Cross/Blue Shield for the following.)

1. Uninsured Americans. Lacking insurance and usually among the poorer strata of America, these American consume health care but are unable to pay for it. To recover the cost of care given these Americans, costs rise. The number of uninsured is growing, in part because the cost of insurance is rising, in part because the number of uninsured is growing, etc., etc., ad infinitum.
   
2. Unnecessary care. Because we insured have insurance, we readily visit the doctor for any and all questions. We visit the emergency room for questions best addressed by a (cheaper) visit to the family doctor. Such behavior ironically puts that coverage at risk.
   
3. Malpractice insurance. An entire industry of lawyers has sprung up to sue doctors and hospitals for anything and everything. This in turn causes a rapid increase in malpractice insurance premiums. To protect themselves against malpractice claims, doctors then often over test for things.
4. Gouging. This isn't a factor many acknowledge, but the medical community contributes through exaggerated pricing and insufficient screening. I have had doctor's appointments where the only thing that emerged was some pamphlets, but the doctor still billed for the appointment. It was something that could have easily been handled over the phone. In fact, the office should have understood they would not be able to do anything and forgo the appointment in the first place, but why pass up the chance to bill for $150? I do not see any reason an MRI should cost $2000, not when so many people get it. But, of course, as long as there is insurance footing the bill, there is no incentive for the providers to reduce these bloated prices.
   

Any viable proposal to deal with the cost of health care must address these issues.

Health Care

USA Today has published a comparison of the health care proposals by both Bush and Kerry during the campaign.

Though his opponent likes to depict him as a liberal, Kerry actually is offering the more conservative of the two proposals — in concept, if not in dollars. He wants to build on private, employer-provided health insurance as well as the public Medicare and Medicaid systems for seniors, the poor and disabled, and working Americans who can't afford insurance on their own.

Bush would steer the nation's health care system in a different direction. He wants more Americans to shop for their insurance coverage or medical services, reasoning that if they are more attuned to the costs, market forces will limit health care inflation.

The key difference, according to this article, is that the president wants to transform health insurance to something more driven by the consumer rather than employers, whereas Kerry wants to extend the existing system to make it more affordable and allow coverage to be extended to more Americans. Comparing cost and impact,

The two candidates differ in the scope and ambition of their proposals. Kerry's is far more expensive. But even conservative analysts say it would provide coverage to far more people than Bush's proposal.

Bush's plan includes tax breaks to encourage Americans to purchase coverage or set aside savings to pay their own medical bills. He estimates it would cost $145 billion over the next decade while extending coverage to 11 million people. A study of the two plans by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, estimates that Bush's plan would extend insurance coverage to fewer than 7 million people.

Kerry estimates his plan would cost $650 billion over 10 years while providing coverage to 27 million Americans. The same conservative study agreed with that number but estimated that it would cost more than twice the amount Kerry advertises.

I dislike Bush's proposal. It reflects his focus on the affluent rather than the ordinary American. Most Americans do not have surplus money in their paychecks to contribute to insurance savings accounts. This is especially true of those American who have no coverage currently. They have no coverage because they cannot afford it. Lowering the cost will not impact those Americans. If you only have $25 to spend, lowering the cost of something from $80 to $40 is inconsequential because you still can't afford it. This is why Bush's plan will not adequately address the problem of millions of Americans without coverage.

One of the fears Republicans try to play on in debate about health care is that the Democrats want to put control over health decisions into the hands of government bureaucrats. In the third presidential debate, President Bush said, "Our health-care system is the envy of the world because we believe in making sure that the decisions are made by doctors and patients, not by officials in the nation's capital." Have these people actually used the kind of health insurance ordinary people get? Decisions are not made by doctors and patients. Decisions are made by insurance companies who decide what will be covered and what will not, what doctor you can see and what doctor you cannot. At best, the insurance companies set the boundaries of what care can be provided, and the doctors and patients make their decisions within those constraints.

I don't believe in a government-run program. I agree with the president, that "once a health-care program ends up in a line item in the federal government budget, it leads to more controls." The thing the government is best at is presiding over an ever expanding army of civil servants armed with reams and reams of red tape and waste. Health care must be managed by private business. But the government has an obligation to help provide coverage to those who cannot afford it, and to help control the costs for those who can afford it.

Four Points More

Well, the Patriots won again, pushing their consecutive win streak to 20 with 17 straight regular season wins. The last time the Patriots lost was 9/28/2003 against Steve Spurrier's Redskins. They lost by 3 points after a slow start and furious comeback that ran out of time. If they had scored just four more points in that game, they would have gone 15-1 last season, won 18 straight games including post-season (a record for consecutive wins, and a record for most wins in a season, breaking the '72 Dolphins 17-0 perfect season). Combining in this year's 5 wins would give them 23 straight. For all the acclaim being handed New England's way now, imagine what it would have been like if they had put up four more points against the Redskins last year.

Yahoo Customer Service

I am a devoted fan of Yahoo, and use many of its services (email, news, calendar, IM, etc.) on a daily basis. But I have to say their so-called customer service is the pits. Now, I understand that I am a tech professional, and so have a pretty good understanding of how things work on the web. But when I consistently have more understanding of their applications, just by using them and reverse engineering in my mind, than the group designated to support that application, I get frustrated.

The best example of this was a couple of years ago. I use Yahoo Instant Messenger. The client supports HTTP proxy access to the servers so that users behind a company firewall can use the application. This worked fine, except they forgot to add functionality in this proxy support for proxies which require authentication. Without that, I could not use the client at work. Other IM clients, e.g. AIM, had the support for authentication. And it's not a big deal to support. So, I sent a note to the IM support suggesting they add this. That set off a chain of emails from the support center, with "helpful" tips on things like how to enable HTTP proxy support (which I obviously knew how to do if I was pointing out a deficiency in this support). Finally I got fed up and told the support team that if they could not understand what I was saying, to take my email to someone in development because they would immediately understand. The next release of Yahoo Messenger had support for proxy authentication.

This weekend, I installed the Firefox web browser at home to try it out. The only issue I have found is in Yahoo Mail's composer page. In Internet Explorer, Yahoo serves up a full HTML editor for email composition, similar to what Blogger gives for editing posts to my blog. But in Firefox, Yahoo serves up a composer page with a simple text box; I have to manually insert all the HTML tags. (Now, this has been an issue with Yahoo for years. Back in 1999, I used Netscape at work, and that browser had the same problem.) So I sent a question to the mail help desk asking how this could be fixed. The first reply was a canned reply about how to enable JavaScript. Every viable web browser for the last 8 years or so have come with JavaScript support, so this is quite silly, not to mention useless. I replied that everything else on the composer page that used JavaScript (menus, auto-fill, etc.) worked fine. It was just the mail editor itself. Their "helpful" reply was to recommend upgrading to a more modern browser, like Netscape (which has the same problem) or IE. This was truly pathetic, since the Mozilla browsers are newer than any version of IE, and Netscape (which they recommend) has the same problem and is built in the same foundation as Firefox.

It's become evident that this help desk does not have the faintest clue what Firefox is, even though it is one of the fastest growing alternatives to IE, just like they didn't understand what proxy authentication was. But if they don't know what I'm talking about, why don't they find out? That would actually be helpful! The responses I get are all canned responses. So it looks like the help desk person just types in some keywords for a search in a database of answers and emails the first one that pops up, even if it's a ridiculous answer. I have been a team lead on a support team. If my team members worked that way, they would not have lasted long. (I know my experience is in a completely different realm and scale than Yahoo's help, but the concepts are similar.)

Yahoo should be embarrassed by this.

Donate A Phone

For those who have unused cell phones lying around the house, the Wireless Foundation's Call To Protect campaign is something worth looking at.

The CALL TO PROTECT campaign collects wireless phones to benefit victims of domestic violence. Proceeds from the sale of phones help fund agencies that fight domestic violence and are also used to support the educational efforts of the Wireless Foundation. Other phones are refurbished and become lifelines for domestic violence victims when faced with an emergency situation.

Drew Sharp on Brett Favre

Columnist Drew Sharp has written

The Packers have to rebuild, and that means finally grooming No. 4's successor -- pity the poor fool. That means someone has to stand up to the living deity and tell him that if he truly loves this organization, he must step away and give way to the future.

Um, who exactly should be groomed? Craig Nall, their 3rd string QB? The Packers have been trying for the last 2 off-seasons to identify Favre's successor so he could be groomed. Last year it was Akili Smith. This year it was Tim Couch. Both were former first round draft picks who fizzled on their original teams, and again in Packer training camp. There is no one in Green Bay, unless Nall has more going for him than anyone realizes, to be groomed right now.

The best the Packers can hope for is that next off-season, someone will become available in free agency. Current Charger starting QB Drew Brees will be a free agent, and the Chargers won't take him back because of all the money they dumped into Philip Rivers. Another possibility might be Kurt Warner, who will almost certainly give way to Eli Manning next year, regardless of how he plays this year. Warner got his first shot at the NFL in Green Bay, so it might be fitting for him to end his career there. He's older, but should still have several years in him.

Of course, the way the Packers are going, they could well have an early pick in the first round of the draft next year, and could draft some hotshot.

NFL Week 6 Predictions

Last week saw the end of an era. Dropping to 1-4 and a solid grip on the NFC North basement, the age of Favre and Green Bay's perennial contention for a Super Bowl is over. They field a defense that cannot stop anyone and face a schedule filled with strong offenses (Minnesota and Detroit twice each, Houston, St. Louis, Philadelphia, and Indianapolis and Tennessee already past). A Favre-lead passing attack is no longer strong enough to keep up with top tier offenses, and brings increasing risks of turnovers. This team will have to fight hard just to get to 8-8, and with their schedule, they just aren't strong enough. If Chicago was healthy, I would be predicting Green Bay in the basement the whole season. Since they are not, the Bear-Packer rivalry will play out this year for the worst team in the division.

I open with that to draw attention away from my 6-8 performance last week. I was 11-5 my first week, and kind of blasé about it. (In my week 2 predictions, I opened with, "Well, I went 11-5 my first week. Not too bad, not fantastic.") Oh for the good ole' days of 11 correct picks! All I can do is keep plugging away.

Onto this week.

Chargers @ Falcons
San Diego is one of the great surprises of the season, so far. The Falcons are another, though far less so. They were at least a playoff team two years ago. This is a classic matchup off offense (Chargers) against defense (Falcons). On the other side of the ball, the Falcon offense has been inconsistent, but they have been effective at times. The Charger defense plays like you would expect the Charger defense to play, i.e. pretty darn bad. Prediction: Falcons.

Dolphins @ Bills
The great battle of the winless. Both teams feature good defenses. The difference will be on offense. The Bills have Bledsoe, Moulds, and Henry. The Dolphins have, uh, somebody, probably. Prediction: Bills.

Redskins @ Bears
The Bears have been decimated by injuries, both to the offense and the defense. Washington has lost quite a bit, but the talent is there. Against a team of backups, they will not struggle. Prediction: Redskins.

Bengals @ Browns
The Browns are just bad. What spark they had on offense broke with Winslow's leg. The Bengals have struggled yet again this season. The defense is pretty bad, but the offense has shown some bright spots. Against this weak defense, the Browns will do nothing while the Bengal offense scores a couple of touchdowns. It won't be pretty, but the Bengals will take it. Prediction: Bengals.

Packers @ Lions
This matchup typically features one team at the top of the division and the other at the bottom. This meeting is no different. Well, it is different. For the first time in recent memory, it is the Lions who are the top team and the Packers who are at the bottom. As I have already noted, the Packer defense cannot stop anyone. The Lions have a diverse and reasonably good offense. (They are ranked 31st. I don't understand that. They've looked pretty good when I've seen them.) Prediction: Lions.

Chiefs @ Jaguars
Jacksonville got off to a fast start this year, led by a powerful defense. But in recent weeks against high octane offenses, that defense suddenly is not so good. Their offense has not done much of anything. Kansas City got off to a very slow start, the result of a continued bad defense and a sputtering offense. That offense seems to be getting back on track, and when it's on it's one of the best. If the Jags couldn't stop Houston, they won't stop KC. Prediction: Chiefs.

Seahawks @ Patriots
The big game of the week, and a potential Super Bowl preview at that, features arguably the best team in the NFC against arguably the best team in the AFC. No one said the defending Super Bowl champion's schedule should be easy. This game should have been a matchup of unbeaten teams, but Seattle blew a huge lead against the Rams in the closing minutes. There are a lot of possible explanations. I see it as a sign of the relative inexperience of Seattle. By and large, this is the first experience most of those players, on defense especially, have had with success. When they got such a big lead, I think their minds started drifting to this week's game and they forgot to put St. Louis away. The game features two well balanced teams, strong on both sides of the ball. Both teams are well coached, with both head coaches having lead teams to multiple Super Bowls. (Holmgren's ring came at the expense of the Patriots, whose defensive coordinator that year was Belichick.) New England has won a record 19 straight games, but they haven't been pretty this year. As in their last Super Bowl defense year (2002), they appear to be vulnerable to the run, and Seattle has a great running game. On the other hand, New England's offense is a well-oiled machine. Not exactly a juggernaut, but a unit that has taken the best the NFL has to offer and beaten it, for 19 straight games and 21 out of their last 23. They will be able to keep Seattle's juggernaut off the field for long stretches. New England's players are old pros at playing big games, but Seattle's are not. Prediction: Patriots.

49ers @ Jets
An unbeaten Jet team against a pathetic 49er team. Hmmm. This is easy. Prediction: Jets.

Panthers @ Eagles
Another conference title game rematch (the Patriots faced off against the Colts on opening night). The Panthers have struggled, at lead in part due to injuries all over the field. Their defense has been especially vulnerable. The Eagles are flying high as the only unbeaten team in the NFC. They now have a high-powered passing game, and their defense has not given up too many points. Prediction: Eagles.

Texans @ Titans
This one will be a shootout. Two high scoring offenses against two porous defenses. Some will say the Titans defense woke up last week. The Packers still managed to score 27 points on them, in desperation mode most of the game where the defense knew what they would be doing. What woke up last week was the Titan offense. Given that the Texans have been much more consistent on offense this season than Tennessee, I'm going for the upset. Prediction: Texans.

Broncos @ Raiders
Since taking over the starting job in Oakland, Kerry Collins has been a one-man interception machine. This week, he takes his show against one of the better secondaries in the NFL. Prediction: Broncos.

Steelers @ Cowboys
The Steeler offense is back to what it has always done best: running the ball. When they do pass, newbie QB Ben Roethlisberger has performed well. Dallas has struggled. Prediction: Steelers.

Vikings @ Saints
Another shootout game. Neither team has a defense to speak of. Looking at both team's speed bumps that pass as "defense", Minnesota does the better imitation of a real defense. Minnesota has the better and more consistent offense. Minnesota has the better coaching. Prediction: Vikings.

Bucs @ Rams
A few years ago, these teams met in the NFC title game. Both have won Super Bowls in the last five years. Both have fallen from their peaks, but the Bucs have fallen much farther. The Rams can still at least contend with the better teams in the league. The Bucs are on their third starting quarterback of the season. Prediction: Rams.

Last Week: 6-8
Season: 40-34

Defensive Bush

One thing I have noticed in all three debates is how defensive the president has been. He has focused more on hammering Kerry than on promoting himself. Not that he hasn't extolled his record of achievement. It just seems like his focus is more on the flaws of Kerry.

In the long run, maybe it won't matter in this election. But, it has always been my belief that, in a re-election campaign, an incumbent needs to run on what he or she has done. A re-election campaign is usually a referendum on the previous term of the incumbent. I also believe that, while negative campaigning has its place, the successful candidate will usually run on him- or her-self. Any candidate must always answer the question, "Why should I vote for you?" Note that the question is not, "Why should I not vote for your opponent?"

I fully believe this is one of the main reasons Al Gore lost the 2000 election, to the extent that he actually lost it. He offered little in his own case. He spent a lot of time talking about what was wrong with Bush, and too little about what was right with Gore. His campaign can be summarized with the word "risky": much of what Bush wanted to do was risky. Bush, on the other hand, hammered home his vision of what his presidency would be. The focus of his campaign was his agenda, the focus of Gore's was Bush's agenda.

In this election, at least in the debates, Bush seems to be following Gore's lead from 2000. He's doing a better job than Gore did of getting his own message out, but still he's following a questionable strategy.

Kurt Warner

I am a fan of Kurt Warner. I like him as a person and have tremendous admiration for him as a quarterback. I have been pleased to see him regain some of the prestige he had a few years ago this year with the Giants. But some commentators are just going too far. Dan Pompei of Sporting News says, "Warner isn't surrounded with anywhere near the talent he had in St. Louis, but he's showing some of his old dazzle." Just last night during Monday Night Catastrophe (at least for us Packer fans), John Madden said that Warner is looking more like the old Warner. I've heard that from several commentators.

Let us have a little perspective here. A few years ago, Kurt Warner was the most feared quarterback in the NFL. He was the head of the most devastating offense the NFL had seen in years, perhaps ever. Today he is a respectable quarterback on a good football team. You can't exactly compare the two. Let's look at statistics from 2001 ("old") Warner and 2004 ("new") Warner:

Stat	2001	2004
Yards/game	301.9	225.0
TD/game	2.25	0.6
INT/game	1.375	0.2
Rating	101.4	91.8

In every stat except interceptions, old Warner wipes the floor with new Warner.

Warner is having a good year and is redeeming his career. Hats off to him. But he is nothing like the old Warner. Come on!

Poll numbers

Reuters today reported: "Democratic challenger John Kerry expanded his slight lead over President Bush to three points in a tight race for the White House, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Monday." For the next few weeks, we will be bombarded with poll numbers reporting each candidate's position in advance of the election. A few things must be kept in mind whenever one reads poll numbers.

First off, all polls should report some margin of error. For the poll referenced above, the error is 2.9 percentage points. This number is derived by simply taking the square root of the number of participants in the poll, divided by the number of participants. There were 1,214 participants, so the error is (√1214)/1214 or 0.029 which is 2.9 percentage points. This calculation is valid on the assumption that the number of participants is large and the sample is truly random. Therefore, when the poll reports Kerry at 47%, they really mean 47±2.9%.

What does the error bar mean? The 47±3 (rounding for simplicity) means his placement is somewhere between 44% and 50%. Really, it means there is a 67% confidence that, if the election were held today, Kerry would poll somewhere in this range. It also means there is a 33% chance he would poll outside the range. Doubling the error bar to 6% means there is a 75% chance Kerry would poll somewhere between 41% and 53%.

Now, of greater interest to both voters and candidates than Kerry's number or Bush's number is the difference between them. This poll reports Kerry ahead by three points. Above, we've discussed how the 3% error bar on each number is derived. What is the error bar on the difference? That is found by taking √2 times the error bar on each number, for a result of 4.1%.

So, the poll is telling us that, if the election were held today, there is a 67% confidence Kerry would place somewhere between 1.1% behind Bush and 7.1% ahead of Bush and a 75% confidence he would place somewhere between 5.2% behind and 11.2% ahead of Bush.

The Presidential Debates, Round 2

The second debate between President Bush and Senator Kerry took place last Friday night at Washington University. Unlike the first debate, the format was a "town hall" meeting, wherein the members of the audience directly questioned the candidates. It is generally felt that Kerry won the first debate. So it was highly important to the president to win this one. It was felt that the style of the debate favored his "down home" style and straight talk. I have to say I did not see the entire debate, missing the last 20 minutes or so. The debate was surprisingly more confrontational than the first one. And, at least in the portion I watched, I thought Bush came across again as flustered and angry, though more aggressive than in the first, and Kerry came off confident and cool. Kerry, again, did not land any body blows. Both candidates did better this time, but if Bush's goal was to win, I don't think he made it. Post-debate polls list it as a draw.

I could flatter myself that someone in the Kerry camp must read my blog. (I'm sure they don't, they just have people who had the same comments I did.) In my comments on the first debate, pointing out missed opportunities for Kerry, I said, "Another point was about the inspections regime against Saddam Hussein, with Bush repeatedly using that as an example of the failures of pre-9/11 diplomacy. Here's a simple response: Mr. President, IT WORKED!" In the second debate, Kerry said

The goal of the sanctions was not to remove Saddam Hussein, it was to remove the weapons of mass destruction. And, Mr. President, just yesterday the Duelfer report told you and the whole world they worked. He didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Mr. President. That was the objective. And if we'd used smart diplomacy, we could have saved $200 billion and an invasion of Iraq. And right now, Osama bin Laden might be in jail or dead. That's the war against terror.

That was a pretty good exchange, and showed Kerry getting bolder. Another good riff from Kerry were some comments on Medicare:

Actually, Mr. President, in 1997 we fixed Medicare, and I was one of the people involved in it. We not only fixed Medicare and took it way out into the future, we did something that you don't know how to do: We balanced the budget. And we paid down the debt of our nation for two years in a row, and we created 23 million new jobs at the same time. And it's the president's fiscal policies that have driven up the biggest deficits in American history. He's added more debt to the debt of the United States in four years than all the way from George Washington to Ronald Reagan put together. Go figure.

Smack! When Bush invoked the L word ("liberal"), Kerry responded

But look, what's really important, Charlie, is the president is just trying to scare everybody here with throwing labels around. I mean, "compassionate conservative," what does that mean? Cutting 500,000 kids from after-school programs, cutting 365,000 kids from health care, running up the biggest deficits in American history.
Mr. President, you're batting 0 for 2. I mean, seriously -- labels don't mean nothing.

Smack!

My wife and I laughed multiple times during the debate when candidates would be asked a question and their answer would be on something totally different. Both candidates did it. I reminds me of a scene in Yes Prime Minister where Hacker is prepping Humphrey for an interview, and his advise is much along these lines. For example, in response to a question about how he would deal with Iran, Kerry talked about the president's failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and North Korea, but nothing about how he would deal with Iran. That's not quite true, he did have one sentence at the end of his question to say, "if we have to get tough with Iran, believe me, we will get tough."

One thing I saw in the president really bothers me, and hints at something I've long feared about him. Much of the first debate and the first portion of the second debate involved Bush's decisions being questioned and attacked by Kerry, requiring the president to defend himself. This seems to really get under his skin, even to get him angry. In the second debate, he was asked how he would repair relations with around the world. Bush's answer, in a raised voice, was to list many decisions that he knew were unpopular. Let me quote the whole response:

No, I appreciate that. I -- listen, I -- we've got a great country. I love our values. And I recognize I've made some decisions that have caused people to not understand the great values of our country. I remember when Ronald Reagan was the president; he stood on principle. Somebody called that stubborn. He stood on principle standing up to the Soviet Union, and we won that conflict. Yet at the same time, he was very -- we were very unpopular in Europe because of the decisions he made. I recognize that taking Saddam Hussein out was unpopular. But I made the decision because I thought it was in the right interests of our security. You know, I've made some decisions on Israel that's unpopular. I wouldn't deal with Arafat, because I felt like he had let the former president down, and I don't think he's the kind of person that can lead toward a Palestinian state. And people in Europe didn't like that decision. And that was unpopular, but it was the right thing to do. I believe Palestinians ought to have a state, but I know they need leadership that's committed to a democracy and freedom, leadership that would be willing to reject terrorism. I made a decision not to join the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which is where our troops could be brought to -- brought in front of a judge, an unaccounted judge. I don't think we ought to join that. That was unpopular. And so, what I'm telling you is, is that sometimes in this world you make unpopular decisions because you think they're right. We'll continue to reach out. Listen, there is 30 nations involved in Iraq, some 40 nations involved in Afghanistan. People love America. Sometimes they don't like the decisions made by America, but I don't think you want a president who tries to become popular and does the wrong thing. You don't want to join the International Criminal Court just because it's popular in certain capitals in Europe.

Nothing in there about repairing relations. Just a litany of the unpopular decisions he has made. I fully agree with the president that "sometimes in this world you make unpopular decisions because you think they're right." But, to me, Bush's attitude is more like, "I made a decision, and I don't really give a toss if you or anyone else like it." He acts almost like it is beneath him to have to justify his actions. The problem is that a president is accountable to the people. That is the heart of a democracy. In business, a company president is accountable to the board of directors, and he or she will be called on a regular basis to justify decisions and report on progress. For a president to feel that is beneath him is quite disturbing.

Beyond that is my impression that Bush gets angry when questioned on his decisions. He has not lost his temper in the debates, but he has clearly gotten angry. If fairly respectful questioning by the people to whom he is accountable makes him mad, what are his emotions when things are hitting the fan? Kerry at least takes the questioning in stride and remains calm. I have always thought the so-called Bush Doctrine was a knee-jerk, emotional response rather than a soberly thought out doctrine. I would hope we would have a president who can control his temper and make rational, sober judgements at crucial times. To see a president who cannot even handle questioning in a debate without getting angry is disquieting.

Bush also seems to have a problem taking responsibility for things. When asked about government spending the deficit, Bush said, "We have a deficit. We have a deficit because this country went into a recession. You might remember the stock market started to decline dramatically six months before I came to office, and then the bubble of the 1990s popped. And that cost us revenue. That cost us revenue." Obviously he is right that the recession was a major factor, maybe even the main factor, in causing a deficit. But cannot he not recognize that a tax cut, reducing government revenue, also played a part? On mistakes made as president, Bush goes so far as to say, "history will look back, and I'm fully prepared to accept any mistakes that history judges to my administration, because the president makes the decisions, the president has to take the responsibility." So, historians will decide what mistakes were made, and he will accept that judgment. But, you will note he does not list any himself. He still cannot bring himself to admit any mistakes.

The Buck Stops Here: WMDs

Asking if the recent finding that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction retroactively affects the justification for the war, The Buck Stops Here points out

No matter how many times people try to pretend that it was only Bush who thought Iraq had winds, nearly everyone thought that at the time. Kerry repeatedly said so, as did numerous other Democrats. Israel thought so, as did Britain, France, Jordan, Egypt, and more. You can't judge the legitimacy of a decision by information that you learn only in retrospect.

Obviously, this is correct. Before the Iraq war, just about everyone seemed to agree that Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. Heck, even I agreed. The president has tried to use this fact to support his decision to go to war. But Stuart misses a couple of things in making this argument.

First of all, why did so many believe it? They didn't have access to intelligence data. (Well, members of Congress did, and they chose to not bother reading it. But I've already commented on that.) Only the president did, and the rest of us chose to believe the president. We trusted him to make an accurate assessment of the information he had, and to report it accurately. This trust, of course, was misplaced. He made a complete mess assessing the information, and exaggerated it to his own purposes when reporting to the public what had been found.

The second point, and this will connect back to the first, is that not everyone did believe it. The weapons inspectors sent by the UN to find these stockpiles Bush was claiming were finding nothing. The conclusion that there were no WMDs in Iraq is not new. The Hans Blix and his team were demonstrating this before the war even began. So this is not a retroactive repudiation of the war. The administration's case for war was being undermined and destroyed before the first bomb even fell. Bush just ignored it. He knew the truth, and anyone who came up with facts contrary to his vision were wrong, or were dupes of Hussein.

Sooner or later, beliefs have to give way to observable facts. Regardless of how strongly one believes intelligence that Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs, one cannot simply dismiss the complete absence of any support from inspections. I can believe there is $1 million in a bag in some locker, but if person after person looks into that locker and finds nothing, how stupid would I have to be to continue insisting the money is there? Bush made a mess assessing the intelligence because he's the guy who continues insisting the money is in the locker. He would not allow facts to get in the way of his beliefs. Our trust in President Bush was misplaced because he lacked the imagination to step beyond his beliefs and look at facts.

The president wants to make his decisiveness a point in his favor for the election. The question is, do we want a president who is so decisive that not even facts will dissuade him from his course of action? The president ignored intelligence information that contradicted his conclusions. (Witness the infamous aluminum tubes that CIA said were not for nuclear reactors. British intelligence said otherwise. The president decided CIA was obviously wrong, because he knew Iraq was pursuing a nuclear program. Whatever supported that conclusion was solid intelligence, anything that contradicted it was questionable, or maybe even non-existent.) When inspectors investigated sites that US intelligence indicated were storehouses for WMDs and found nothing, he just ignored them. One even wonders if Bush dispensed with the inspections regime so quickly simply because they weren't finding anything, which undermined his argument.

Is this how we want a president to make far reaching decisions? Stuart says, "You can't judge the legitimacy of a decision by information that you learn only in retrospect." I agree. But you can judge the legitimacy of a decision by information you had at hand at the time, and that information has always been that Iraq did not have the WMDs Bush said over and over were there. There never was support for Bush's fantasies. Bush just never let that get in his way.

NFL Week 5 Predictions

7-7 last week. Um........... My one consolation is that I am not alone. Just about everybody I read is being hammered. It has been so bad that a 40% vote in Yahoo's Pro-Pickem qualifies as a "fan pick," like in last week's Houston victory.

Onto this week.

Lions @ Falcons
I'm still not overly impressed with Atlanta's offense, but you have to credit their defense. They are really bringing it this year. The Lions have a good, young offense, but they should be shut down by that Falcon D. Prediction: Falcons.

Giants @ Cowboys
Before the season, I said that the Giants had much more talent than some people credited them with, but they had a lot of question marks as well. So far, those questions are being answered positively. Warner has been effective, though he only has 2 touchdowns in 4 games. (He used to get 2 touchdowns in a half.) The veterans on the team, after much carping, seem to be buying into Coughlin. If the Giants hadn't shot themselves in the foot so many times against Green Bay, their victory would have been much more impressive. This is a talented team that is still improving and finding itself. Dallas has shown a pretty good offense as well, and a capable defense. This should be a good game. Dallas' defense should slow down the Giants and preserve the win. Prediction: Cowboys.

Vikings @ Texans
This ought to be a shootout. Houston has put up big numbers on offense all year, and we all know the Vikings' ability. Minnesota has a marginally better defense and is coming off the bye. Prediction: Vikings.

Raiders @ Colts
The Colts have the best offense in football. The Raiders struggled last week with new starter Kerry Collins. Three interceptions in his highly anticipated debut in silver and black! Both teams have decent defense, but the Raiders will not be able to keep up with Manning. Prediction: Colts.

Dolphins @ Patriots
The big one. The one for the books. New England goes for consecutive win #19 against one of the teams tied at 18 in Miami. While New England's achievement, should they win, will pale in comparison with the '72 Dolphins perfect season (followed by winning the '73 season opener, to make 18 straight), it is still something to be proud of. While no one in the Patriot organization will officially make a big deal about the record, it's actually good. This game could easily be a trap for New England, facing a weak team this week and a possible Super Bowl preview against arguably the best team in the NFC next week. Any chance that the Pats would overlook this game is eliminated by remembering the historic importance of the game. To take the record, they go against one of the worst teams in the NFL. There are two types of losing teams, those who lose a lot but are good and bring hope for the future (e.g. Arizona) and those who lose a lot and are just pathetic (e.g. San Francisco). Miami is in the latter. Their offense is atrocious. Defense is good, of course, but that's it. Without an offense who can make first downs, a team could field the Steel Curtain and it wouldn't matter. The Patriots are clicking on all fronts. There are question marks, yes, regarding the run defense, but against the Dolphins, who cares. Prediction: Patriots.

Bucs @ Saints
Has Gruden given up on the season, yet? He has benched his veteran quarterback and will start first-timer Chris Simms. The Saints can be pretty darn good, or pretty darn bad, depending on the week. Coming off an embarrassment last week, they will stuff Simms. Prediction: Saints.

Browns @ Steelers
Pittsburgh is sitting atop the AFC North division. I have to admit my (pleasant) surprise. Rookie quarterback Roethlisberger has been decent so far, decent being about the best you can expect from a rookie QB. The defense is looking pretty good again under LeBeau's guidance. The Browns, on the other hand, are still just trying to keep a full compliment of players on their roster and off IR. Prediction: Steelers.

Bills @ Jets
I knew before the season that one of these teams would be challenging New England for the division title and the other would be a disappointment. I just had them backwards. The Jets are off to a high-flying start, behind a rejuvinated Curtis Martin and an efficient Chad Pennington. Buffalo's defense should not be overlooked and they will challenge the Jet offense. But the Jets handled Miami's defense, so they should be ready for the challenge. The one reservation about New York that must be kept in mind is that they have beaten the Bengals, Chargers, and Dolphins, none of whom have proven to be powerhouses. Prediction: Jets.

Jaguars @ Chargers
This is actually an interesting matchup. The Chargers have shown a proficient offense this year, putting up some pretty big numbers. The Jags have shown a proficient defense. On offense, the Jaguars have not been impressive, but are improving. Leftwich threw for over 300 yards last week. The Charger defense just stinks. It will be a low scoring game, which favors Jacksonville. Prediction: Jaguars.

Panthers @ Broncos
Another pretty good matchup, between the defending NFC champions and a team in the thick of the hunt for the AFC title this year. The Panthers are off to a slow start and need a win to keep up with Atlanta in the division. They have a strong defense (ranked 7th in the league), especially up front, which will be important against the Bronco running game. I should say they should be good against the Bronco running game. Despite their apparent strength up front, they are ranked 29th against the rush. The Broncos have a very good defense too, ranked number 2 overall. This may be the best game of the week since both teams are well balanced. Denver is stronger overall on both sides of the ball. Prediction: Broncos.

Cardinals @ 49ers
Arizona finally notched its first win last week. The team has been playing hard for Dennis Green and things finally came together for them. As I noted above, the Cardinals are among the "good" losing teams, whereas the 49ers are among the "bad" losing teams. Heck, the 49ers are perhaps the worst team in the league. I have said in the past that I would actually pick the Cardinals sometimes this season. This is a week I prove it. Prediction: Cardinals.

Rams @ Seahawks
The Seahawks are one of the best teams in the NFL, with an explosive offense balanced by a stifling defense. Not too many teams can boast both nowadays. The once mighty Rams are in sharp decline. They may be the second best team in the division, but that's only because Arizona and San Fran are the other two. Prediction: Seahawks.

Ravens @ Redskins
The Redskins have played better than their 1-3 record. Like the Giants, they just keep shooting themselves in the foot. Their defense has been playing quite well, especially against the rush where there are ranked #1. The vaunted Raven defense has given up almost twice as much yardage on the ground as the 'Skins, and is overall not as good as it has been in recent years, ranking 21st in the league. On offense, both teams feature strong running games but the Redskins have a clear advantage in the passing game. So with the advantage on defense and passing offense, the 'Skins should get their season going again, unless they shoot themselves yet again. Prediction: Redskins.

Titans @ Packers
Think about the this game and the previous two. Favre, a 3 time league MVP, has gone up against Peyton Manning (1 time MVP), Kurt Warner (2 time MVP), and, assuming he plays, Steve McNair (1 time MVP). Other than Marshall Faulk, are there any former MVPs who are still active (which means Gannon is out) that haven't played in Packer games these last three weeks? Anyway, this matchup features two marquee Mississippi-bred quarterbacks, both coming off injuries. The two teams are very evenly matched: both have strong-armed quarterbacks, strong running games, and disappointing defense. The game should be a shootout reminiscent of the Packer game against the Colts. The Titans are not as good as the Colts on either side of the ball, and McNair will not be at full speed due to the sternum injury that kept him out of last week's game. If McNair plays, it will be close. If he's the emergency QB again, it will be a blowout. Prediction: Packers.

Last Week: 7-7
Season: 34-26

Saddam Destroyed Weapons in 1991!

USA Today reports

An extensive U.S. investigation has found that Iraq destroyed virtually all its chemical and biological munitions in 1991, a dozen years before President Bush ordered U.S. troops to invade based largely on the alleged threat posed by those weapons.

So, as I said, Hussein was NOT a threat in 2003. He did NOT need to be disarmed, contrary to the repeated erroneous assertions by President Bush, to which Senator Kerry has agreed. One has to question the judgement of any candidate who cannot see this simple and obvious truth.

Kerry's Position on Iraq

In the first presidential debate last week, Senator Kerry tried to clearly define his "consistent" position on Iraq, in the face of the Bush campaign's relentless effort to pin the "flip-flop" tag on him. His statement of position:

I know exactly what we need to do in Iraq, and my position has been consistent: Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the U.N. The president needed the authority to use force in order to be able to get him to do something, because he never did it without the threat of force. But we didn't need to rush to war without a plan to win the peace.

What does this statement mean? George Will translates it, "Make me president and I will more deftly implement essentially the same policy." This is why Kerry has had such a hard time distinguishing himself from the president on the issue he has chosen to fight this campaign on. He says, essentially, Bush's ideas could have been implemented better. That's not exactly a strong case to be president.

In what way does Kerry say he would have been better? According to his comments in the debate, he would distinguish himself in essentially two ways. First, he would have better planned for the post-war occupation and rebuilding of Iraq. Second, he would have more enthusiastically enlisted the help of the United Nations, perhaps through another round of UN resolutions.

The basic problem here is the initial premise, namely "Saddam Hussein [was] a threat." If one accepts this assumption, then Bush's actions, frankly, follow logically. If, after 12 years of economic and political sanctions by the United Nations, Saddam Hussein was still a threat to his neighbors, and ultimately to the US, then quite clearly the sanctions regime sponsored by the UN had failed. These sanctions were designed and implemented with the goal of disarming Hussein. If he still had vast stockpiles of weapons, as the president argued, then it is quite obvious these sanctions had failed. Furthermore, such stockpiles would indicate that Hussein was actively deceiving the United Nations with this repeated protestations of innocence. Such deception would have to give one pause. No, if Hussein really was a threat, as Kerry and Bush both contend, then something had to be done to eliminate Hussein. War? Maybe. But certainly something.

To argue for another round of sanctions, as Kerry did in the debate, is plain silly. There were already numerous sanctions and UN resolutions in place addressing the fundamental point, resolutions being ignored by Hussein if he really was a threat. What's the point of adding another one? Does a parent just continually tell a child to do something, and when the child continues to disobey, simply issue another demand? No. At some point, the parent in some way compels the child to comply. The same is true here. If Hussein was continually disregarding the demands of the global community, then at some point the global community must stop demanding obedience and start compelling it.

Logically, one cannot argue that, on the one hand, Hussein was a threat, and on the other hand that more sanctions or resolutions are required. This viewpoint is, to quote the president, "ludicrous."

But the issue is this: Saddam Hussein was not a threat in 2003! The absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq proves this simple fact. Hussein was not a threat, the inspections, sanctions, and UN resolutions in fact had their desired effect. During the debate, the president repeatedly asserted that Hussein needed to be disarmed. HE WAS! The reason the war was a mistake is that the stated goal of the war not only could have been achieved through non-military measures, but it had been achieved before the war even started.

That Senator Kerry, after all that has emerged since the war began, still cannot see this simple fact is quite disturbing. How can I vote for a candidate whose only argument is that he would have done a better job implementing a policy that should never have been pursued to begin with? Who does one vote for, the one who came up with a bad policy and then carried it out badly, or the one who promises to do a better job implementing the same bad policy?

Having been so critical of both the president and Senator Kerry, it is only fair to lay out what should have been done. Intelligence estimates suggest that Saddam Hussein, an enemy of the United States, has stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and has made progress in nuclear weapons programs. Armed with this information, the president should have gone to the United Nations, as he ultimately did, to persuade the Security Council to issue one last demand that weapons inspectors be allowed to resume their jobs. These inspectors, armed with detailed intelligence supplied by the United States, could investigate the exact locations where stockpiles are allegedly being stored. There are only two possible scenarios from this point: (a) the inspectors confirm the intelligence information by finding the stockpiles, or (b) the inspectors find nothing. In the first case, the president could have then argued strongly that Hussein must be dealt with, and the world would likely have supported him as they did his father in 1991. History shows that the second scenario is what played out. The inspectors found nothing. At some point, the absence of any supporting evidence on the ground should force the president to re-evaluate the intelligence data he has been given. Realizing the errors in the intelligence, the president backs off on military action against Hussein, and continues the clandestine efforts to remove him from power.

The First Debate

Kerry and Bush had their first of three debates last night, this one focused on foreign policy. The first debate is crucial since it is the one most people watch, and this year because it is on foreign policy which both candidates have elevated to the top of the campaign strategies. The debate came off about as one would expect, both sides repeatedly expressing their canned phrases and themes.

Bush did not come off as well as he could have. He so repeated the same things over and over and in such an obvious way that it did not look good. He was more defensive in his comments than Kerry, but the president did not need to do as much. On those occasions where Kerry gave him an opening, he took it but did not get too aggressive with it. For example, in explaining his approach to pre-emption, Kerry talked about a "global test," an unfortunate choice of words that allowed Bush to fire back that he would defend the United States, and not hand decision making power regarding defense to foreign countries. Commenting on what should have been done in Iraq, Kerry mentioned another round of sanctions, giving Bush the opening to repeat how foolish that would have been. If I may mix metaphors, all Bush needed to do was play a prevent defense, and when the openings came he hit singles.

Kerry landed no major blows against Bush. There were a couple of times I thought the president just lobbed up a pitch to Kerry that begged to smacked over the fence, but Kerry missed all opportunities in order to stick to his script. One of Bush's favorite points was to question Kerry on comments like "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time," asking if that is how a commander in chief should talk. "What message does that send to the troops?" was Bush's favored refrain. Kerry could have retorted something along the lines that a president who has inherited a mess should be honest about it. (Admittedly, he tried. "I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right. That's what I learned in Vietnam.") Another point was about the inspections regime against Saddam Hussein, with Bush repeatedly using that as an example of the failures of pre-9/11 diplomacy. Here's a simple response: Mr. President, IT WORKED! In a spat about Kerry slighting the coalition Bush assembled, the president specifically mentioned Poland. Kerry could have responded by reminding the audience that the Polish president felt Bush had misled him regarding WMD intelligence before the war.

This was Kerry's one big opportunity to explain his foreign policy views, especially regarding Iraq and the so-called war on terror. He did a good job explaining himself, and addressing some of the soundbites the Bush campaign has used over and over to support the flip-flop theme. But I don't think he took the next step of making a compelling argument for himself. The strongest part of Kerry's performance was in enumerating the examples of the president's failed leadership. Examples included

• poorly equipped troops in Iraq, where some parents are privately buying Kevlar jackets and sending them to their kids in Iraq "as Christmas presents,"
• poor security in harbors, where "ninety-five percent of the containers that come into the ports, right here in Florida, are not inspected,"
• poor security at airports, where "civilians get onto aircraft and their luggage is X-rayed, but the cargo hold is not X-rayed."

Those themes should be hit much harder in the remainder of the campaign. But having opened that door, Kerry walked away.

In the end, Kerry came off well and probably "won" the debate. He had the chance to explain his differences with Bush, and to address those soundbites, and he did. But he still didn't make a compelling argument for what he would have done and how he could do better. Viewers will come away impressed with Kerry, but with their minds unchanged. Therefore, Bush actually won.