Moss to the Raiders

Last month, I argued that the Minnesota Vikings should be open to trading Randy Moss. We now have the news that the Raiders have agreed to trade their first round draft pick (#7 overall), a future 7th round pick, and linebacker Napoleon Harris to Minnesota for Moss. Now, my argument was based on the assumption that the Vikings would get quality defensive players for Moss. I've personally never heard of Harris. Don Banks writes, "Harris isn't a great linebacker by any means, but he's as good as anybody the Vikings have at the position currently, and he's only entering his fourth NFL season after being taken in 2002's first round." (Not all that great but as good as anyone the Vikings have, I love it.) With the seventh pick in this year's draft, they should be able to pick up another budding defensive star. So, clearly this is ultimately a good move by Minnesota.

The Raiders make out like bandits, of course, with this trade. Coach Turner loves to go downfield. Last year, he picked up one of the better downfield passers in Kerry Collins. Now he adds arguably the best downfield receiver in Moss. Add Jerry Porter to the mix and you have the makings of one of the best passing games in the NFL. You think the defensive coaching staff in Kansas City will be sleeping well the next six months?

This move will benefit Minnesota in one other way. In trying to understand the Vikings' struggles the last couple of years, where their talented roster has produced a two year record one game over .500, one thing that occurs to me is the lack of leadership. On an offense, the quarterback should be the unquestioned leader on and off the field. But I don't think Culpepper has been that. Watching them, there really haven't been any obvious leaders. This is a legacy of how the team was built. When Culpepper came into the league in 1999, he was drafted by a team coming off a 15-1 season who set a record for most points scored and come within a missed field goal of going to the Super Bowl. Clearly, then, they were already an established team. On the depth chart, Culpepper sat behind established veterans Randall Cunningham and Jeff George. The offense featured future Hall of Famer Cris Carter, established veteran Robert Smith, and young hotshot Randy Moss, already established as one of the top receivers in the league. A team enjoying all that success at the time and featuring so many veteran players will not be looking to their rookie third string quarterback for much, especially when he comes from some small college program that few other than alumni have ever heard of. When Culpepper took over the quarterback gig in his second year, most of those veterans were still there, and none too tolerant of the inevitable mistakes made by a young player. I still remember so many times seeing Carter and Moss yelling at Daunte on the sidelines after a bad play. When Mike Tice comes in, he started talking about the Randy Ratio, which essentially told his offensive players their job was simply to get Moss the ball.

None of this development served to position Culpepper as the leader. (Compare his development with Peyton Manning's, who inherited a lousy team devoid of talent and which grew right along with Manning.) His whole career to this point has been in the shadow of bigger names. Moss was the last vestige of the old guard in Minnesota. This is now unquestionably Culpepper's team. The stage is now set for Daunte to emerge as the leader he needs to be, and for all the players to rally around him. That unity should result in more consistent play out of their offense, which would mean more wins.

A Franchise Kicker

Just how well off are the three time Super Bowl champion New England Patriots? They are considering a franchise tag for their place kicker, Adam Vinatieri. Fanball writes

Yes, you read that correctly: a kicker may be franchised. Obviously, no team in its right mind would give up two first-round picks for a kicker, even one as rock-steady as Vinatieri, so bank on him returning to the Pats next season. And what a luxury for the Patriots to be in such sound salary-cap shape that they have so few other contract worries they can afford to franchise their kicker. That's how a dynasty is constructed.

At a time when some teams have to worry about choosing between two marquee players (Seattle, for example, choosing between their quarterback and their running back), and others have to cut stars to get under the cap (e.g. Tennessee), the Pats can just slap the franchise tag on whoever is convenient.

Not Allowing Legal Music Downloads

This weekend, I was searching many of the legal music download services for cuts off Led Zeppelin's recently released How the West was Won live album. (I heard the kick butt rendition of Heartbreaker on the radio, and just had to get it.) Not one service had anything by Zeppelin available. Now, Led Zep is one of the biggest bands ever, so this was quite surprising. After searching through some FAQs, I discovered that "in a number of cases, such as Led Zeppelin and The Beatles, [MSN Music is] limited by the desires of the artists or their management not to sell their music digitally online." Apparently the Beatles, the biggest band ever, are in the same position as Zep.

In this day and age where electronic distribution of music is so widespread and popular, why would a band choose to not allow it's material to be distributed in this way? It makes absolutely no sense. By not making material available through MSN and the other services, the bands drive their fans to the illegal services like eDonkey and Kazaa. This is clearly not in the interests of those bands. Bands, no matter how big, must bow to the demands of their audience. Users who want electronic distribution will get it, with or without the approval of the bands.

What We Don't Know About 9/11 Hurts Us

The Nation has published an excellent piece on what the FAA's recent information releases reveal about the government's actions prior to 9/11. An excerpt:

And let's be clear: The failure to fully disclose what is known about the 9/11 tragedy is not some minor bureaucratic transgression. Not since the Soviets first detonated an atomic bomb more than half a century ago has a single event so affected decision-making in this country, yet the main questions as to how and why it happened remain mostly unanswered.

Even worse, what we do know calls into question our government's explanation that a diabolical international terrorist conspiracy exploited our liberal, naive society. What has emerged, instead, is a portrait of an often bumbling terrorist gang allowed to wreak havoc because the top tiers of the administration were so indifferent to the alarms, which former CIA Director George Tenet described so graphically: "The system was blinking red."

Use the Force, Luke!

The Buck Stops Here blog has a link to a very interesting article at RedNova News. The article begins

DEEP in the basement of a dusty university library in Edinburgh lies a small black box, roughly the size of two cigarette packets side by side, that churns out random numbers in an endless stream.

At first glance it is an unremarkable piece of equipment. Encased in metal, it contains at its heart a microchip no more complex than the ones found in modern pocket calculators.

But, according to a growing band of top scientists, this box has quite extraordinary powers. It is, they claim, the 'eye' of a machine that appears capable of peering into the future and predicting major world events.

The machine apparently sensed the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre four hours before they happened - but in the fevered mood of conspiracy theories of the time, the claims were swiftly knocked back by sceptics. But last December, it also appeared to forewarn of the Asian tsunami just before the deep sea earthquake that precipitated the epic tragedy.

Now, even the doubters are acknowledging that here is a small box with apparently inexplicable powers.

Before you think this is a hoax or something, Professor Jahn's web page can be found on Princeton's web site, the section of relevance being entitled Engineering Anomalies Research, and the Daily Princetonian has at least two articles (here and here) on his research. Professor Jahn established the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research group at Princeton, whose web site can be found here. The Global Consciousness Project also has a website at Princeton, which includes an article on the 9/11 attacks.

Like Stuart Buck, I don't know what to make of this. But it's certainly interesting.

Iraqi Elections

The official results of the first post-Saddam election in Iraq are coming out. Supporters of the administration have called the election a great success, simply by taking place. It was further asserted that the fact of the election was a rebuke of the terrorists causing so much turmoil inside Iraq. Reality, as usual, is more complex.

Was the election a success for the burgeoning Iraqi republic? Certainly. The fact that throughout much of the country, the election was conducted smoothly, peacefully, and with heavy turnout is a ringing endorsement that democracy can take root there. That's the positive spin on the election, but there is another side to the story. The big winners in the election were Shiite parties associated with fundamentalist Islamic clerics, such as Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who are allied to Iran, hardly what the administration wanted. Furthermore, the US-backed list, headed by Prime Minister Allawi, finished a distant 3rd in the final tally. So, not only will Allawi and his followers be out of power, they will likely not even be a minority presence in the coalition that will be formed between the Shiites and Kurds.

In Sunni areas, the heartland of the insurgency, voter turnout was dismal, as low as 2% in the province of Al-Anbar, due to fear of violence and a self-imposed boycott. This will result in the Sunni population being severely under-represented in the new assembly, which has significant implications. The insurgency is fueled, at least in part, by Sunni fears of oppression at the hands of Shiites. (The Sunnis have long been the minority branch of Islam in Iraq, but have held the reins of power for 1000 years through repressive dictators like Saddam.) By keeping Sunni voters from the voting booths, the terrorists have helped create the very situation many Sunnis feared, namely a legislature dominated by the Shiites and with little representation for them. This can only serve to fuel the insurgency. Contrary to the administration's assertion that the election is a victory over the terrorists, the election could well be a victory for the terrorists.

Beyond adding fire to the terrorists, the absence of Sunnis in the new assembly has direct implications for the future of the fledgling republic. The purpose of this election was to elect a temporary assembly whose primary task will be to draw up a constitution. That constitution is due to be put before the Iraqi people in October in a referendum. If 2/3 of the voters in the Sunni heartland vote no, the referendum will be defeated, delaying the approval of a constitution, and therefore delaying the solidification of the new government.

For those who feel elections in themselves are harbingers of peace, the BBC reminds its readers of history.

Elections do not bring peace by themselves in a time of civil war, and a civil war on a grand scale is what the rebels are trying to instigate.

We saw that in El Salvador in 1982, when voters crammed into the polling booths while guerrillas were being hit by helicopter gunships on the volcanoes that surround the capital San Salvador.

The elections went off successfully. The civil war went on for another eight years.

It is right to celebrate the successful election in Iraq. But a long road remains. The election raises many questions. Will the US sit by and allow its soldiers to die for what may become a Shiite Islamic state allied to Iran? Will the absence of Sunnis in the newly elected assembly exacerbate the insurgency, further destabilizing that part of Iraq? Will the majority Shiites bring Sunnis into the temporary government despite their small representation in the assembly, vital to bringing Sunni support to the new constitution? With the Kurds in a position of power in the new assembly, will the secessionist movement in the Iraqi north fade? So, while this election is an important first step, it is only a first step.

Social Security Reform

The president has made reforming Social Security the priority of his second term. His reform proposal would be to totally overhaul the system, all the way down to its philosophical core. Is such a radical overhaul really necessary?

The problem is fairly simple. Benefits are paid out from a trust fund into which all American workers pay a tax on their paychecks. Today, as has been true since the program was created, the rate at which money is coming into the trust fund through that payroll tax exceeds the rate at which money is going out of the trust fund through benefits. This means the trust fund is growing. However, as the baby boomers begin retiring in the next ten to fifteen years, the rate at which money is taken out of the fund will dramatically increase and, according to estimates on which everyone seems to agree, around 2018 the payout rate will exceed income, and the fund will begin to shrink. Finally, around 2042 the fund's value will fall to zero.

From what I've read on the subject, everyone seems to agree on this statement of the problem. The differences come in solution. The president's approach is to radically redefine Social Security. In the current model, today's workers pay money into the fund to provide the benefits paid out to previous generations of workers now in retirement. So, I am paying for my grandparents and parents, my kids will pay for my parents and me, my grandkids will pay for me and my kids, etc. In the president's solution, this basic picture would be totally changed. I would put money into an account similar to an IRA, and at retirement draw money from this account. In this picture, the worker is ultimately paying for himself.

Do we really need a radical solution of any kind? If we agree to keep the current model, then any solution is a matter of tinkering with both the rate at which money is coming into the trust fund, and at which money is paid out. Basically we want to move the transition point, currently estimated to arrive in 2018, where the rate at which money coming into the fund falls below the rate at which money is paid out. How can this be accomplished? Raising the retirement age would keep older workers paying into the system longer, increasing the rate at which money comes in, and reduce the amount of time they are drawing benefits, decreasing the rate at which money is paid out. That simple solution should extend the life of Social Security quite a bit. And it makes sense. People are living longer today and are healthier in their later years than they were in previous generations. A retirement age set at 65 or 67 just doesn't make sense anymore. Many of these seniors want to keep working.

Cynthia Tucker writes of another simple solution:

Even that crisis of diminished benefits (which won't kick in until the Bush twins are nearly old enough to collect Social Security themselves) could be headed off with a modest increase in the payroll tax, which is currently quite regressive, costing people who earn less a higher percentage of their incomes. As of 2005, workers pay the payroll tax on every dollar of their income up until $90,000. If the tax were increased to the first $100,000 or $110,000 of income, which would not touch average workers, Social Security could pay full benefits well into the distant future.

There are plenty of proposals I have read about, including means testing for beneficiaries (i.e. not providing benefits to wealthy retirees).

Now, there is a key point about all of these simple solutions. They are not permanent. Adjusting the retirement age or increasing the maximum income subject to payroll tax will move the transition point to a later date, but that point will still exist. This means these solutions must be constantly revisited and recalibrated. The president's goal, as stated in the State of the Union, is to "pass reforms that solve the financial problems of Social Security once and for all" (emphasis mine). The president later stated his guidelines more completely, saying

We must, however, be guided by some basic principles. We must make Social Security permanently sound, not leave that task for another day. We must not jeopardize our economic strength by increasing payroll taxes. We must ensure that lower income Americans get the help they need to have dignity and peace of mind in their retirement. We must guarantee that there is no change for those now retired or nearing retirement. And we must take care that any changes in the system are gradual, so younger workers have years to prepare and plan for their future.

As we fix Social Security, we also have the responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers. And the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts. Here is how the idea works. Right now, a set portion of the money you earn is taken out of your paycheck to pay for the Social Security benefits of today's retirees. If you are a younger worker, I believe you should be able to set aside part of that money in your own retirement account, so you can build a nest egg for your own future.

This is really the heart of the debate. If one wants to keep the current basic concept of Social Security in place, then simpler, shorter term solutions are all that is required; such a system can never be made permanently solvent. If, on other hand, one envisions a radically different conception of Social Security, as the president does, then equally radical reforms are required.

David Shribman characterizes this philosophical debate as "personal freedom vs. collective responsibility." The current model is built on the idea of collective responsibility, i.e. the belief that our society has a general obligation to care for and support the elderly and infirmed. We readily recognize this principle underlying much of the New Deal and Great Society programs championed by the liberals. The president's approach is built on the idea of each person taking care of himself, which we readily recognize underlying much of the conservative's social concepts. So, this debate on social security reform is more fundamentally a debate between conservative and liberal ideologies.

Regardless of one's philosophical preference, the cost issues raised by the president's radical reform are daunting and ultimately preclude such an approach. Benefits will continue to be paid out to those already receiving them, and to those approaching retirement, who will therefore have little time to put money into their private accounts. Yet no money will be coming in to pay for those benefits, leaving a massive deficit that would have to be covered by borrowing, increasing the budget deficit and the national debt. Clearly, this is not a good idea.

SCO's case against IBM

CNet reports that the judge in SCO's lawsuit against IBM has loudly questioned the merits of SCO's case.

"Despite the vast disparity between SCO's public accusations and its actual evidence--or complete lack thereof--and the resulting temptation to grant IBM's motion, the court has determined that it would be premature to grant summary judgment," Kimball wrote Wednesday. "Viewed against the backdrop of SCO's plethora of public statements concerning IBM's and others' infringement of SCO's purported copyrights to the Unix software, it is astonishing that SCO has not offered any competent evidence to create a disputed fact regarding whether IBM has infringed SCO's alleged copyrights through IBM's Linux activities."

SCO's continual blustering and amateurish attempts at bullying Linux customers has always stood in stark contrast to any actual documentation in support of its claims, and now even the judge in the case is calling them out. That does not bode well for SCO.

McNabb and Clock Management

Many, including myself, have questioned the Eagles' management of the clock late in the Super Bowl when they were down by 10 with five minutes to go and they were taking their time. On this subject, SI's Peter King reports

The Eagles wanted to run the no-huddle at the end of the game, but Donovan McNabb was ill on the field. Last night, on a Comcast show in Philadelphia, center Hank Fraley said McNabb was just trying to survive out there, and on one play, Freddie Mitchell ended up making the play call in the huddle because McNabb was disoriented. I believe he was totally dehydrated.

Super Bowl Thoughts

Well, it's all over now. I was right about who would win the Super Bowl, but not about how the game would play out. The Eagles were more effective offensively than I had expected in my game prediction. In the end, I think the game came down to two things. One, McNabb, though he certainly did many things well, made several pretty bad throws. Three interceptions, and a fourth one nullified by a penalty. It's pretty hard to win, even when throwing for 350 yards, with that on your back. The other point was the Eagle defensive line's ineffectiveness. In the NFC title game, the defensive ends in particular were constantly in Vick's face, thwarting his running and his ability to make passing plays. Against the Patriots, they were non-existent. Jevon Kearse only got camera time when he went down with cramping. Burgess made one sack, but did little else. Brady had all the time in the world to make his reads and throw the ball. Look at the touchdown to Givens that everyone is talking about. Givens was his third read. A quarterback can only go through his progressions like that if the defense is not applying pressure.

So much for Owens being ineffective. I am truly impressed that he not only played, but played well. It's unfortunate that his efforts will be overlooked because they were in a losing effort.

The game will go into the books as yet another 3 point win for New England. But the game was not really that close. Once New England's offense got into a rhythm in the second quarter, they moved the ball at will, something the Eagles were never able to do. They had some good drives, but those were isolated. The Eagles never got into a rhythm. Even when the Patriots had to punt, it was usually after a few first downs. The Eagle defense just couldn't stop them consistently or efficiently. The Patriots should have won this by at least 14. The Brady fumble cost them at least a field goal, if not a touchdown, and the Eagle touchdown at the end of the game only happened because of sloppy play calling by New England's defense.

In the end, it was a surprisingly sloppy game from both teams. The Patriots came out with false start penalties early in the game. Their first significant drive ended on a fumble because of sloppy execution of a play fake by Brady. At the end of the game, leading by 10, the Patriots made a bad defensive call (man coverage with a rookie backup safety on the fastest receiver in an Eagle uniform?) that allowed the big touchdown. For the Eagles, there were the bad passes from McNabb. But the killer was horrible clock management at the end of the game. Down by 10 with 5 minutes left, against a defense that has basically had your number all day? Hey, take your time! They ran off three minutes to get that touchdown, and even then they needed a big pass play to get it. With better New England defense, they would have needed another minute or two to get down field, which would have left no time for the second score. Running so much time off forced Philly to go for the onside kick and, on not recovering it, condemned them to trying to score with no timeouts and 45 seconds left. Terrible management by Andy Reid.

Of New England's three 3-point wins, the only game that was as close as the scoreboard indicated was the Panther game last year. That one really was nip and tuck all the way. This year's game was sloppy, allowing the Eagles to get much closer on the board than they should have. The only reason the Ram game was close was because the Patriot defense was exhausted by the fourth quarter, allowing the Rams to run off two quick touchdowns to erase a 14 point Patriot lead. A few more first downs by the Patriot offense in that game, and it's not that close.

Somebody wrote that we were due for a boring Super Bowl, after a string of pretty good ones. Well, we got it.

The Super Bowl ads really stunk. The only ones I really even remember were CareerBuider.com's monkey ads, and those were only memorable for their total stupidity. But it was really nice to see a halftime show where the musician allowed the music to speak for itself. When you write good music, you don't need hundreds of scantily clad dancers and breast-baring publicity stunts to make an impact. You can just go out and perform. Maybe it will be a new trend to look for actual talent instead of mere exhibitionism. Yeah, right.

Halftime Ironies

Has anyone noticed these two ironies about this year's Super Bowl halftime?

1. It was CBS, home to the oldest demographic of all the networks (and therefore the least likely to offend anyone other than teenagers) and built on shows like Murder, She Wrote that got stuck with the wardrobe malfunction of all time whereas Fox, the network that never met a cultural standard it didn't smash and built on shows like Married With Children, That 70's Show, and The Simpsons, will be presenting what will probably be the most family-friendly halftime show in recent memory. (Excepting the inevitable ED treatment ads, with their side effect warnings about 4 hour erections, and bikini-clad women cavorting and shilling for beer.)

2. Paul McCartney, once a leading member of a rock band that was perceived as a bigger threat to cultural standards than Janet Jackson could ever dream of being, is the safe choice as performer to ensure a G (well, maybe PG) rated show.

Dodd on Gonzales

Senator Christopher Dodd has given a moving speech in the Senate opposing the nomination of Alberto Gonzales as the next Attorney General. Dodd summarizes his opposition into two points:

One, because in a nation founded on the principle of human freedom and dignity, he has endorsed the position that torture is permissible;

And two, in a nation dedicated to the proposition that all are equal and none is above the law, he has suggested that the President of the United States, acting as Commander-in-Chief, has the right to act in violation of laws and treaties prohibiting torture - and may authorize subordinates to do the same.

On the applicability of the Geneva Convention to prisoners in the Afghan war, Dodd says, "What is most troubling is that Mr. Gonzales argued for a view of the Geneva Conventions that was inconsistent with American law, American values, and America's self-interest." Getting right to the heart of the matter in regards to torture and America's position in the world, Dodd asks,

What does it say about our Nation's commitment to the rule of law that this nominee will not say that torture is against the law?

What does it say about our Nation's commitment to equal justice under law that this nominee would have the President and his subordinates be above the law?

How do we explain this to the citizens of our country, to the citizens of other nations, and most especially to the citizens of tomorrow - to our young people who will inherit this country as we leave it to them? Will we tell them that "torture is wrong - unless the President orders it?"

The Senator compares this moral ambiguity to the clarity expressed in the Nuremberg trials of the Nazi German leadership after World War II. Dodd closes by invoking Lincoln:

In his second State of the Union address, Lincoln said that, in giving or denying freedom to slaves, "We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last, best hope of earth."

The issue then was how our nation treats the enslaved. The issue today is in some respects no less profound: how our nation treats its enemies and its captives, including those in places like Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo Bay.

By treating them according to our standards -- not theirs - we feed the flame of liberty and justice that has rightly led our nation on its journey for these past two and a quarter centuries.

Bankruptcy & Medical Costs

ABC News reports

Half of all U.S. bankruptcies are caused by soaring medical bills and most people sent into debt by illness are middle-class workers with health insurance, researchers said on Wednesday.

Typically, bankruptcy is viewed as the result of credit card debt, but South Carolina lawyer George Cauthen has found that credit cards account for less than 1 percent of bankruptcies in his state. In contrast, medical bills account for about one third. ABC quotes Dr. David Himmelstein saying, "Our study is frightening. Unless you're Bill Gates you're just one serious illness away from bankruptcy."

Even with health insurance, the cost of co-pays and deductibles, along with uncovered procedures can quickly add up. Researchers for the study wrote, "Among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness." The report goes on to say, "The average bankrupt person surveyed had spent $13,460 on co-payments, deductibles and uncovered services if they had private insurance. People with no insurance spent an average of $10,893 for such out-of-pocket expenses." And as the total cost of health care increases year after year, health insurance for middle-class workers is covering less and less, so this problem will only get worse.

Previously, I have argued that major healthcare reform should be one of the top three priorities of President Bush's newly begun second term. Insurance cost increases are out of control, which is becoming an economic issue. Shortly before the 2004 election, Linda Johnson wrote, "Businesses have identified soaring health insurance costs as the most critical issue facing them today." Eileen Simon continues in the same article,

Medical costs also have emerged as an important policy issue for automakers. Detroit's Big Three contend the massive amounts they spend on health care for workers and retirees $8.5 billion combined in 2003 is the biggest obstacle for competing with foreign automakers. Before the election, General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. said it was vitally important for whomever wins the White House to work across party lines to solve the nation's health care crisis.

Already overburdened employers are being forced to shift more and more of the cost of insurance to their employees, and that insurance is covering less and less, resulting in additional out of pocket expenses. These increasing expenses lead to the high bills and bankruptcies ABC is reporting. This problem actually feeds back on itself. The cost of unpaid health service bills, either by the uninsured or those forced into bankruptcy, forces providers to increase the cost of those services, resulting in higher insurance premiums for employer and employee and higher out of pocket expenses, which in turn result in more bankruptcies, triggering higher costs, and so on. The economy cannot long hold up under this burden. The crisis of skyrocketing health care costs is a ticking time bomb in this country.

Yet, where does this crisis fit in President Bush's agenda for his second term? Not very highly. The president devoted just one paragraph of his State of the Union speech to the subject:

To make our economy stronger and more productive, we must make health care more affordable, and give families greater access to good coverage, and more control over their health decisions. I ask Congress to move forward on a comprehensive health-care agenda -- with tax credits to help low-income workers buy insurance, a community health center in every poor county, improved information technology to prevent medical errors and needless costs, association health plans for small businesses and their employees, expanded health savings accounts, and medical liability reform that will reduce health-care costs, and make sure patients have the doctors and care they need.

The focus, as during the campaign, is primarily on providing insurance. I have argued previously that controlling the cost of health care must involve more than just insurance. The findings that ABC report add support to that argument. Insurance alone merely reduces the cost. But, even with insurance, costs can rapidly get out of control for middle-class families. A comprehensive solution is required, and soon.

Addressing the looming disaster of health care costs must be a much higher priority for this administration than it appears to be at this point.

NFL Super Bowl Prediction

Well, it all comes down to this. Months of predicting every game in the regular and post season and now there's just one game left (I won't bother with the Pro Bowl). I have to admit a measure of relief. Some weeks it was quite tiresome to write about each and every game. On the other hand, looking back I can chuckle at the doozies (my prediction that the Falcon defense would stuff the Chief running game is a classic) and pat myself on the back for those times when I totally nailed it. As tiresome as it was at times, I will do it again next season.

Onto this week.

Eagles vs. Patriots
This is the Super Bowl matchup I and most others have been expecting most of the season. As I wrote before, it is a matchup of the best in the NFC against the best in the AFC. The two teams are well matched and similar. Both are balanced between offense and defense, and feature defensive coordinators who are masters at devising schemes. As has been noted throughout the season, the AFC has usually triumphed this year in interconference play. Anyone who has read this blog, in particular my recent argument that the 2004 Patriots would beat the 90's era Cowboys, probably already knows I'm going with New England in this game. Let me break down why.

• Experience. I know this is somewhat overrated, but the Patriots are clearly the experienced team. They won the Super Bowl last year, and most of the leading players on this year's team were part of last year's. Over 40 players on the Patriot roster have Super Bowl rings, compared to only a few for the Eagles. I am only aware of one key player in Philadelphia who has won a Super Bowl: Dorsey Levens. Javon Kearse was with Tennessee in 1999 when they lost to St. Louis in Super Bowl 34. Advantage: New England.
  
• Offense. The Patriots have the fourth highest scoring offense in the NFL, and are at full strength on that side of the ball. They have gone against a slew of tough defenses all year, and in the playoffs, and have come out on top. The Eagles have a pretty good offense too, but their star receiver has a broken leg and another star, Chad Lewis, was lost in the NFC title game. Yes, T.O. looks like he's going to play, but I cannot believe he will be at full strength. So the Eagle offense will challenge the injury-riddled Patriot secondary with Todd Pinkston and Freddie Mitchell, who is best known for his mouth rather than his play. If that secondary could handle Manning and his receivers, I can't see these guys making much of a dent. Advantage: New England.
  
• Defense. Both teams feature outstanding defenses. The Eagle defensive front shut down Atlanta's running game in the NFC title game, and three of it four starters in the secondary are headed to the Pro Bowl. The Patriots, though beat up, have stood up against some of the best offenses in the league and taken them down. I cannot see too much of an advantage here for either team, except that the Patriots have faced more good offenses over the course of the season than the Eagles have, so they are better tested. In the end, this has to be a draw.
• Special Teams. Is there a better clutch kicker than Adam Vinatieri? This is where experience comes in. Vinatieri has been there twice, making clutch kicks to win Super Bowls, whereas Akers has not. The Patriots lead the league in field goal percentage during the regular season. Advantage: New England.
• Coaching. Both teams have great coaching staffs. New England's has more rings, but Andy Reid was with the Packers when they were going to Super Bowl in the 90's, so he's not exactly a virgin. I'll give a slight edge here to the Patriots, because of experience and because I think Romeo Crennel is a slightly better planner than Jim Johnson. Brian Baldinger recently compared the two teams in terms of fundamentals, concluding, "The Patriots are masters of the basics." That is a reflection of coaching. Advantage: New England.

Let us break down the game this way.

• Patriot offense against Eagle defense. This is the high profile matchup. The Eagles are still primarily a defensive team, and the Patriots have become an offensive power. The Patriots can run so many different offenses that no one has effectively stopped their offense. New England only had one game all season where they put up under 21 points. On the other side, the Eagle defense was among the league leaders in terms of points allowed, only giving up 21 or more points four times, and one of those was when they were playing their backups. Excepting that season-ending meaningless Bengal game, the Eagles haven't given up 21 or more points since mid-November, and they won that game (Dallas) in a blowout. It must be said that the Eagles did not face too many top offenses during the season. Apart from the Vikings (twice), Packers, and Steelers, no opponent's offense stands out. The Patriots have faced many good defenses and scored. They are just too adaptable. Advantage: New England.
• Eagle offense against Patriot defense. The game will come down to this matchup. Can the Eagles score or will the Patriots shut them down? The Eagles had a mixed record during the season against good defenses. Against the Steelers, they only mustered a field goal. Against the Ravens, they only mustered one touchdown and three more field goals. Against the Redskins, on the other hand, they averaged 22.5 points per game and McNabb threw five touchdown passes (but only one in the second game). Philadelphia's downfall in the previous NFC title games was their offense's inability to score touchdowns against good defenses. Against the Patriots, the Eagles will need those touchdowns. Field goals won't get it done. New England's defense is well known for its ability to shut down opposing offenses, even the best. On the other hand, they also gave up 28 points to the Bengals and 29 to the Dolphins in consecutive weeks. But history overall gives the advantage here to New England as well.

In the end, the AFC has just been too good this year. The Eagles may be the best team in the NFC, but I don't think they would crack the top three in the AFC. They are too inexperienced and overmatched. Prediction: Patriots.

Regular Season: 158-98
Post Season: 8-2