Alito

Again, I'm no lawyer so I don't really know what I'm talking about, but in the world of blogging, does that really matter? In reading about Judge Alito, two things strike me. One, he is often a dissenter from opinions. Two, his opinions seems to be often overruled by the Supreme Court, particularly on some key cases. When Roberts was nominated, one of the arguments in his favor was that he had argued often before the Court, and had a very good track record of winning. In other words, his arguments fell much in line with the majority on the Court. Alito seems often to be overruled, meaning he is not in synch with the majority. Andrew Sullivan references an interesting story in which Alito was not only overruled, but rebuked by his nickname-sake Scalia.

If a person is in a decision-making role in a company and his or her decisions are frequently being overruled by superiors, would we expect that person to get promotion? I don't think so.

Alito’s Dissent in Casey

I'm no lawyer and don't have any vested views on the subject, but with Alito being nominated to the Supreme Court his dissent in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey is going to be a highly debated point. Patterico has a detailed analysis of Alito's dissent, concluding

The bottom line is this: Judge Alito’s Casey dissent shows one thing, and one thing only: he is a careful judge and an adherent to the rule of law and a limited role for the courts. It is a dissent of which we can be proud.

No doubt others will have a dissenting view of his dissent.

Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives

Think Progress writes that Harriet Miers was subjected to a different standard than John Roberts.

It is clear that, absent an unambiguous pledge to overturn Roe, the right holds women nominees to a different standard. They do it because they fear a woman justice will feel empathy towards other women making the agonizing choice of whether to have an abortion. They fear that a woman justice would not be willing to use criminal sanctions to regulate other women’s decisions.

I think this illustrates clearly a basic difference between liberals and conservatives, which is a key to understanding how the Republicans have been able to manage such a grip on national politics these last 36 years.

Liberals tend to be very narrowly focussed on specific issues. They are concerned with things like abortion rights, affirmative action, gay rights, etc. For this reason, the Democratic party is a big tent party, encompassing a wide range of narrow special interest groups with little in the way of an overarching philosophy. This in turn leads to much of the in-fighting and struggles Democratic candidates have had over the years pulling together a national campaign. They have to satisfy so many special interests that they can't pull it all together, leading to many defectors to Republican candidates (aka the Reagan Democrats).

From a judicial point of view, this leads to an emphasis on specific issues for judges, such as would they vote to overturn Roe v. Wade? The Think Progress view of Miers is focussed on very specific issues. She was to the right of Roberts on abortion, so why would right-wingers like Roberts more?

Conservatives, on the other hand, are more focussed on broader issues of approach and philosophy. They are concerned with things like small government, lower taxes, etc. Certainly there are interest groups within the conservative movement, but typically they have subordinated their internal differences on specific issues in favor of the broader philosophies which they share. (One of the big changes in the conservative movement that Bush has brought about is that the disparate groups in conservatism are not necessarily getting along any more.) This has lead to a tightly bound Republican party and a much more solid voting base for Republican candidates for national office.

From a judicial point of view, this leads to an emphasis more on judicial philosophy than on views of specific issues. I am loathe to quote her, but Ann Coulter puts it well.

From the beginning of this nightmare, I have taken it as a given that Miers will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. I assume that's why Bush nominated her. (It certainly wasn't her resume.) Pity no one told him there are scads of highly qualified judicial nominees who would also have voted against Roe. Wasn't it Harriet Miers' job to tell him that? Hey, wait a minute ...

But without a conservative theory of constitutional interpretation, Miers will lay the groundwork for a million more Roes. We're told she has terrific "common sense." Common sense is the last thing you want in a judge! The maxim "Hard cases make bad law" could be expanded to "Hard cases being decided by judges with 'common sense' make unfathomably bad law."

For most conservatives, it is not about how one would vote in a case that would challenge Roe v. Wade, it's about the principles that a justice would apply in any case. Roe is not an issue so much for its specifics, but rather for the judicial philosophy underlying it, the willingness to go far beyond what the Constitution says to make up things.

Roberts convinced conservatives that he believed in a conservative judicial philosophy. He might not vote to overturn Roe, but he could be counted on to not vote to create more Roes. A necessary pre-requisite to establishing this philosophy is that his fundamental qualifications as a legal scholar were unquestioned. In other to have a fully developed philosphy, one must first understand the field.

Where Miers failed was that no one ever believed in her basic capability as a justice. Maybe she could be counted on to overturn Roe v. Wade. For some in the special interest group that has tunnel vision on that one case, that may have been enough. But she never convinced anyone that she actually understood the Constitution, certainly not well enough to have developed a consistent, reliable philosophy on how to interpret it. As Coulter writes, this basic ignorance opens the door to many more poorly reasoned opinions like Roe. For this reason, Miers was rejected by those who supported Roberts.

NFL 2005 Week 8 Predictions

Ugh. Only 6 wins last week. Looking at last year's performance, the same thing happened. Let's hope that doesn't carry over to this year. If I am going to end up with more wins this year than last, I have to make up the ground these next few weeks. I nailed the last 6 weeks last year.

Onto this week...

Cardinals @ Cowboys
After an 0-3 start, the Cardinals are starting to put things together a bit. They have gone 2-1 under McCown, with the loss being to Carolina by only 4. Alright, the two wins were against San Fran and Tennessee, not exactly top notch competition. But they are winning, and in two of those games McCown threw for nearly 400 yards. He has definitely established himself as the starter, and I don't expect Denny Green will make the same mistake he made last year in benching McCown for a time and throwing away playoff contention. Of course, they still have no running game. Dallas has had a good season. Parcells has both the offense and defense clicking and the team can be impressive. The key will be the Cowboy defense, which will be too good for the Cardinals to handle. Without a running game to worry about, the Dallas front will tee off on McCown who doesn't have great protection. And the secondary will take advantage of his youth and make some picks. Prediction: Cowboys.

Browns @ Texans
I was impressed with Cleveland to start the year. Dilfer was playing well, the offense was moving. They looked like maybe a middle-of-the-road caliber team. Since then, Dilfer has become an interception machine. He hasn't thrown a TD since week 5, and his yardage and rating have fallen dramatically each week for the last three games. Houston, despite being the lone winless team in the league managed to be competitive, at least for a time, against the mighty Colts last week. Cleveland's rush defense is one of the worst in the game, and the Texans have a good running game with Davis. Is it possible? Could Houston actually be the pick? Yes. Prediction: Texans.

Jaguars @ Rams
With so many key players out, the Ram offense is a shell of itself. The Jaguar defense will be all over the Ram offense, and Leftwich and company will move well against a poor Ram defense. Prediction: Jaguars.

Vikings @ Panthers
In my preseason predictions, I pointed to this game as being pivotal in the NFC playoff picture, with perhaps top seed on the line. Instead, both teams are in third place in their respective divisions. Minnesota played an impressive half of a game last week to beat Green Bay. Does that mean they've turned the corner? Or did they simply rise up a notch to defeat a hated division rival? Even in the last two years'’ 3-7 runs, the Vikings managed to look good 3 times. But none of those 3 wins were back to back. It's hard to read too much into that game. Both offenses played well for one half and dismally the other. Both defenses skipped right to the dismal portion of the game plan, and stayed there the whole time. This is the time when the Vikings need to step up if they are to justify at least some of the hype. Panthers, Lions, Giants, Packers the next four weeks. Carolina, after a stumbling start, has run off three straight wins, against lesser opponents. The offense has not quite been all together. Delhomme has almost as many interceptions as Culpepper. Two interception-prone QBs facing off this week? Maybe it'’s time to play the Panther defense in fantasy, if I played fantasy that is. In this game, I like the strong Panther defensive front against the Viking offensive line (like the linebackers last year, big and easily confused), resulting in a lot of pressure on Culpepper. That means sacks, fumbles, and interceptions down field. I also like the relentless Panther running game against the Viking defense. Prediction: Panthers.

Redskins @ Giants
I originally picked the 'Skins to win the NFC East, then retracted once Brunell took over at QB. I have to give credit here. Brunell has been fantastic. He's putting up offense I had no idea he could. Gibbs' decision to trade for him doesn't look so stupid now, does it? With their ferocious defense coupled with an offense that can put up a pretty good number of points, this is a team to watch out for, like I said originally. So, yes, I am back on the Redskin bandwagon. My prediction will be proved right, even if it's for totally the wrong reason. The Giants are very good too. Eli Manning is shaping up to rival his brother. But the defense is just not as good as it needs to be. Both teams will put up points, but Washington will put up more, thanks to strong play on both sides of the ball. Prediction: Redskins.

Bears @ Lions
How times have changed. Rather than playing for the NFC North basement, like they usually do, these two teams are playing for the undisputed top spot in the division, not to mention the singular achievement of having a winning record. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, barring a tie, someone in the NFC North will be above .500 after this weekend. Amazing. With Detroit having switched to Garcia at QB, their offense has a lot of potential, and they have an underrated defense to go along with it. Chicago doesn't have enough offense to go with its powerhouse defense. This should be a defensive game, but the Detroit will make more plays than Chicago will on offense. Prediction: Lions.

Packers @ Bengals
Having dropped to 1-5, Green Bay faces a daunting schedule the next three weeks: Bengals, Steelers, Falcons. After that comes the Viking rematch and then the Eagles. That would be a tough schedule for the Packer first string, but we are well past the first string by now. The top two running backs are out for the season, three wide receivers are out, tight end Bubba Franks is coming off an injury. Starting center Mike Flanagan is questionable. So if you don't recognize many of the names on the field for Green Bay this week, don't worry, you're not alone. Favre probably doesn't know them either. Despite the miserable record and all the injuries, Favre is having quite a season. 6th in QB ranking, 1st in TD passes, 5th in yards per game. Yet they lose. They don't lose by much, but they lose. Other than the Lion game to start the season, they've lost by 2, 1, 3, and 3. So they cannot be counted out to make a rally, and let's face it, we're talking about the NFC North here, but I certainly think Favre will end up having one losing season in his career. (Yes, I think this is his last year.) He can't do everything, he can only be the great quarterback. The Bengals have had an outstanding season, though their defeat last weeks shows they are not quite ready for AFC elite status. But playing Green Bay is not exactly like playing the Steelers. Prediction: Bengals.

Raiders @ Titans
This was the AFC title game not too long ago, which shows you how fast things can change. Oakland's strength is its deep passing game. The Titans weakness, well their biggest one, is their pass defense. Oakland really is better than their record would suggest. Prediction: Raiders.

Dolphins "@" Saints
The Saints' home this week is in Baton Rouge, where Nick Saban coached last year. That should dampen the homefield advantage for the Saints, who have to travel a ways to get home. The Saints are just dismal. The Dolphins, after a decent start, are not all that great themselves, but they can play defense and move the ball on offense. Aaron Brooks' propensity for interceptions and bad passes will hurt him against the Miami defense. Prediction: Dolphins.

Chiefs @ Chargers
KC has rebounded from back-to-back losses with a two game winning streak. They have put up points against strong defenses (Washington and Miami), but they have also given up points to lesser offenses, particularly Miami. San Diego has acquitted itself well in a four game stretch that included three of the four teams from last year's conference title games. They destroyed New England and came within a fluke play of beating the Eagles. Both teams have good offenses, but the Chargers just seem better in all facets of the game. This will be high scoring, but San Diego takes it. Prediction: Chargers.

Eagles @ Broncos
Yet again, Denver failed to put away an opponent last week, and this time they didn't even manage to hold on to eke out a win. Denver has got to do better than that, especially against this opponent. The Eagles managed a shocking win last week against the Chargers, snatching victory from the jaws of defeat at the end of the game. But still, it took a totally lucky play for them to win. I said before the season I didn't really like the Eagles this year, and they have done about what I would have thought. They play decently and win games, but, unlike the last several seasons, they have not pulled away from the pack in their own division let alone the NFC. Denver has been impressive, except for their inability to close out a game. They play offense and defense well, Jake Plummer has not made the mental mistakes so prevalent in his career to date. Especially playing in Denver, I have to go with the Broncos, but Shanahan needs to remind his players that football games go 60 minutes. They cannot keep folding late in the game. Prediction: Broncos.

Bucs @ 39ers
Here they are, the newly demoted San Francisco 39ers. At least they beat Houston. The Bucs recently traded for former San Fran starting QB Tim Rattay, and I've read that they've been picking his brain about his former team. What do you think he's telling them? On offense, run a play. It will work. On defense, run to the QB. I'm not a coach, obviously, but is it really that hard to game plan the 39ers? Especially when they are on their third starting QB of the season? Prediction: Bucs.

Bills @ Patriots
Will Tedy Bruschi make his return to the field this week? If he does, will he turn the defense around? He should certainly shore up the defensive front, adding a playmaker to the linebacking corps that they haven't had all season. Richard Seymour coming back will help even more. But neither are going to help in that secondary. Luckily for New England, Buffalo is not so much a downfield passing threat. The key to the game will be the New England running game against a weak Buffalo run defense. If Dillon plays, the Pats can run all night, control the clock, and use the running game to open up play action and the Brady passing attack. Even Pass should be able to put up good rushing numbers against Buffalo. Prediction: Patriots.

Ravens @ Steelers
Baltimore, picked by some before the season to win the division, look to be one of the worst teams in the AFC. The offense is doing nothing, not even rushing the ball. The passing game is as bad as it's been since Dilfer left. Even the defense, the backbone of the team, is faltering, and the big guns--Lewis and Reed--will not play this week. Pittsburgh is just kicking butt. The only real flaw in Steeltown is the lack of depth at QB. Ben's great, but there is a huge dropoff in ability in his backups. The terrible towels will be flying high. Prediction: Steelers.

Last Week: 6-8
Season: 54-48

Chronic Illness

An Andrew Sullivan reader writes:

The country has had a "reeling vacancy" in the Oval Office since 2001. All of the failures, the poor choices, the misguided appointments, lack of foresight and diplomatic grace etc. have been there for years. Put another way, he is not reeling now just because he has been caught at being wrong in so many ways on Iraq, North Korea, the deficit, torture, cronyism, et al. He is reeling now because he has always been reeling.

There is a distinction physicians make between an acute illness and the acute diagnosis of a chronic illness. We as a nation are dealing with the latter."

"Do not be deceived, ... whatever a man sows, this he will also reap." (Gal 6:7)

What Bush Needs

Paul Begala writes

Mr. Bush would do well to augment his current staff, a C-Team if ever there was one, with some stronger characters. But to read the Bush-Miers correspondence is to gain a disturbing insight into Mr. Bush's personality: he likes having his ass kissed. Ms. Miers' cards and letters to the then-Governor of Texas belong in the Brown-Nosers Hall of Fame. You can be sure the younger and less experienced Bush White House aides are even more obsequious. The last thing this President wants is the first thing he needs: someone to slap his spoiled, pampered, trust-funded, plutocratic, never-worked-a-day-in-his-life cheek and make him face the reality of his foul-ups.

Certainly, the president, any president, needs a staff that will support him but also will stand up to him when he's wrong. He doesn't have this, and it's largely his own fault. Time magazine wrote,

Bush's bubble has grown more hermetic in the second term, they say, with fewer people willing or able to bring him bad news--or tell him when he's wrong. Bush has never been adroit about this. A youngish aide who is a Bush favorite described the perils of correcting the boss. "The first time I told him he was wrong, he started yelling at me," the aide recalled about a session during the first term.

Newsweek went further:

“It's a standing joke among the president's top aides: who gets to deliver the bad news? Warm and hearty in public, Bush can be cold and snappish in private, and aides sometimes cringe before the displeasure of the president of the United States, or, as he is known in West Wing jargon, POTUS,” Evan Thomas wrote in Newsweek on September 19. Thomas talked to “several aides who did not wish to be quoted because it might displease the president.”

Thomas went on to report “Bush can be petulant about dissent; he equates disagreement with disloyalty. After five years in office, he is surrounded largely by people who agree with him…Late last week, Bush was, by some accounts, down and angry. But another Bush aide described the atmosphere inside the White House as "strangely surreal and almost detached." At one meeting described by this insider, officials were oddly self-congratulatory, perhaps in an effort to buck each other up. Life inside a bunker can be strange, especially in defeat.”

(emphasis mine) When the president makes it clear he does not want to hear bad news, his underlings are not likely to bring it to him.

But Begala writes, "When he came to Washington, Mr. Bush surrounded himself with tough-minded people who seemed not to be afraid to stand up to him." I cannot agree. This refusal to listen to bad or contrary information is nothing new. It has been one of the hallmarks of the Bush presidency. From the beginning, CIA analysts looking at intelligence data regarding Iraq "worked in an environment that did not encourage skepticism about the conventional wisdom." I wrote before:

Analysts at CIA are pursuing a career. With such pursuits come a desire for attention from on high, for promotions, etc. Against such a backdrop, analysts are not likely to draw conclusions deviating from the expected results. Not only will those analysts not get attention from supervisors and upper management for their work, they would actually be frowned on. When no one wants to hear anything other than the expected result, writing unacceptable conclusions could well damage one's career at CIA. As the LA Times reports, "And when CIA analysts argued after the war that the agency needed to admit it had been duped, they were forced out of their jobs." So, the desire for career advancement and security would pressure the analysts to conclude what was expected.

This trait of not listening to dissent, and punishing those who say things the president doesn't want to hear is what got us into Iraq. Now, when things are going so badly for him, the president is paying the price for his own stubbornness and insularity.

The Buck Stops Here: Urban Education

The Buck Stops Here has a detailed response to a recent article on urban education.

Open Office 2.0 Is Out

Need to write a paper, create a spreadsheet, or prepare a slide presentation? Don't want to spend a fortune on Microsoft Office? Well, OpenOffice 2.0 is now available free from their website. The application suite offers

• spreadsheet (like Excel)
• word processor (like Word)
• presentation (like Powerpoint)
• and, new with 2.0, a database/reporting tool (like Access).

I don't claim to be an expert on the software. I use it for personal things, but not extensively. But it does give a pretty powerful package at a totally affordable price ($0).

Scowcroft on Bush

Steve Clemons has posted some lengthy extracts from a New Yorker article on former national security advisor Brent Scowcroft. (The article itself is apparently not online, but a Q&A with the author is.) Fascinating stuff. I was never a big fan of the elder President Bush, though he has grown on me as time has gone by, but one thing one could never argue with is that he had a great group of men and women around him, including Scowcroft. Scowcroft is very close to the elder Bush, and to Secretary of State Rice.

Defending The Indefensible

George Will on the Miers nomination:

Such is the perfect perversity of the nomination of Harriet Miers that it discredits, and even degrades, all who toil at justifying it. Many of their justifications cannot be dignified as arguments. Of those that can be, some reveal a deficit of constitutional understanding commensurate with that which it is, unfortunately, reasonable to impute to Miers. Other arguments betray a gross misunderstanding of conservatism on the part of persons masquerading as its defenders.

Equal Opportunity

Against Democratic charges that conservative criticism of Harriet Miers is sexist, holding women to a higher standard than men, the New Republic observes

[U]nlike some members of his party, the most powerful man in that world has no double standards: Regardless of gender, he gives all his cronies an equal opportunity to rise above their qualifications.

Mike Brown. Harriet Miers. Equal opportunity incompetence.

NFL 2005 Week 7 Predictions

I knew I couldn't top last year's fantastic week 6 performance, but I came pretty close. At 10 wins, it's the best week of the season so far.

One thought about last week. Pundits will talk a lot about teams playing prevent defense, with the old saying that it just prevents you from winning. But there's also a prevent offense. Look at the Bronco-Patriot game last week. In the first half, the Bronco defense was blitzing and attacking the Pats like crazy. Brady was ineffective because he constantly had defenders in his face, he couldn't step into his passes, and he couldn't wait for plays to develop. The offense attacked the suspect secondary, putting up lots of big plays. After halftime, leading 28-3, what did the Broncos do? Did they continue to play the game they had played to that point to put New England, always a dangerous opponent, away? No. They went prevent. The attacking defense backed off to play soft, giving Brady the chance to work his magic. The offense stopped attacking downfield and tried to manage the clock by way of the running game. And what did they get for their trouble? The Pats come storming back to turn what should have been a blowout into a tight game. If a game plan has gotten you to the brink of blowing out an opponent, it should be obvious that it's working, so keep going! That's two weeks in a row for Denver that they allowed an opponent to come back to the brink of a tie.

Watching last week's games also made me again realize just how tough the decisions a coach faces on the field are. In both the Bronco-Patriot and Jaguar-Steeler games, the starting QBs on the losing team started pretty badly, particularly Maddox. Down 28-3, I was seriously thinking Patriot coach Bellichick should bench Brady just to keep him safe for another day. And I definitely felt Cowher should have benched Maddox. Both coaches decided to keep their man in. Brady proceeds to bring his team back and give them a chance to tie, while Maddox, having gotten the tie, proceeds to throw away the game on an interception. So, were they right to keep their starters in or should they have benched them?

And what about overtime. Should Cowher, having gotten a great kickoff return putting his offense in field goal range to start OT, have gone right away to the field goal attempt, or was he right to try to get closer? In hind sight, it's easy to see he should have gone for it, if for no other reason than to keep the ball out of Maddox's hand and thereby avoiding multiple turnovers. These guys really do have a tough job, and they do it in front of tens of thousands (except in Arizona) of screaming fans and millions more on TV scrutinizing every move, always thinking they know better than the coach.

Anyway, onto this week....

Lions @ Browns
Paging Jeff Garcia. Detroit continues the charade that is Joey Harrington, starting quarterback, this week against his successor's former team. Cleveland is just better in all aspects of the game. Not that they are all that good, but we're talking the Lions. They could only be considered a front running in a division as bad as the NFC North. Shows you how bad the NFC is. Prediction: Browns.

Colts @ Texans
The league's only unbeaten team against the only winless team. This is what I call an easy pick. You have to have some pity for Houston. Prediction: Colts.

Saints @ Rams
St. Louis got off to a good start Monday. Then Indy woke up. When Bulger left, so did the Ram offense. Going against the Saints is much easier than going against the Colts, but without Bulger the Ram offense isn't what it was. New Orleans will have the better offense, and since neither team can play defense, that will do it. They are inconsistent, but the Saints did beat Carolina and nearly beat Atlanta. They can play well on the road. Prediction: Saints.

Chargers @ Eagles
A test run of the Super Bowl? I think not, but a pretty good matchup nonetheless. San Diego is on a roll, winning three of the last four, with the sole loss being a 2 pointer to Pittsburgh on a last second field goal. The Eagles are coming off an ugly loss to Dallas. They too have won three of the last four, but those have been less impressive. McNabb is hurting and the defense is giving up too many points. It nearly killed them against the Chiefs. They can ill afford to fall behind like that again facing a much better opponent in San Diego. Expect the Chargers to follow Dallas' example and attack hard, pounding the ball with LT and throwing deep with Brees, who should by now be fully entrenched as the QB of the future in San Diego. Prediction: Chargers.

Packers @ Vikings
It's hard to believe that as recently as last year, this was the premier matchup in the NFC North. Now, it's the battle for the basement. The game gives Minnesota a break from all the investigations. As long as they are playing the game, they are unlikely to embark on another criminal escapade. Seriously, though, the Vikings are a shambles right now. Culpepper has one of the worst QB ratings in the league, a year after being an MVP candidate, only slightly better than dominating figures like Joey Harrington and J.P. Losman. He leads the league in interceptions, the only QB to be in double digits, while being at the bottom of the list in terms of TD passes. To top it off, he's got a gimpy knee. His line stinks. The running game has disappeared. The only piece of the team that has carried over from last year is the poor quality defense. 28 points to the Bear offense? In short, the Vikings have fallen to 1-4 in horrible fashion and the distractions off the field just make it worse. The Packers have at least been competitive. Favre is one off the lead in TD passes for the year, though he is tied for 2nd in the league in interceptions (8). Like Minnesota, the Green Bay running game is missing in action. But one has to have a little more confidence in Ahman Green to turn it around than Michael Bennett. Also like the Vikings, the Packer defense, shall we say, leaves something to be desired. So, in the three main aspects of the game--passing, rushing, and defense--the teams are evenly matched in two. In the remaining element, passing, the Packers have the edge, though, certainly, it could all come together for Culpepper at any time. Prediction: Packers.

Chiefs @ Dolphins
After some early season teasing, no one talks about the Chief defense anymore. What is surprising is that the offense isn't the scoring monster it used to be. Trent Green has only 4 TD passes. The runners are still doing well, but the stout Dolphin defense should be able to handle that. Miami has a pretty good running game of its own, and it will do well against the KC front. Moving the game to Friday does not help the visitors. Prediction: Dolphins.

Steelers @ Bengals
While the Viking-Packer games used to be the premier events in the NFC North, the Steeler-Bengal games have for years been a snooze-fest, all but a week off for the black and gold. This year, this is the big game in the AFC North. A Bengal win will put them in command of the division. A Steeler win will essentially bring them even with Cincinnati. The Bengals feature one of the best offenses in the NFL, the Steelers one of the best defenses, though they are a little weak in the secondary. The Bengals are healthy, the Steelers a little banged up, particularly Roethlisberger coming off a knee injury that initially looked season-ending and Ward possibly out for the game. Those injuries will make the difference and give Cincy the edge. Welcome back to the NFL. Prediction: Bengals.

49ers @ Redskins
San Fran is well on its way to being the worst team in the league for the second year in a row. (Maybe not. There's always Houston.) Is it too early for the demotion to the 39ers? Maybe next week. This week, Alex Smith gets fed to the dogs, a weekly affair, going against the ferocious Redskin defense. I am certainly surprised at how well the 'Skin offense has performed under Brunell, and he should have a good day against this demoralized bunch. Prediction: Redskins.

Cowboys @ Seahawks
This is a bigger game than most would have expected. The winner of this matchup between two division leaders will be tied with the Bucs for the most wins in the NFC, and will obviously hold the tiebreaker edge in playoff standings, should it come to that. I really like what how Dallas has been playing. When Bledsoe gets protection and has good receivers to throw to, he can still be dangerous. But it's the Dallas D, who I expected to have a lot of problems in the switch to a 3-4, that is the big surprise. On the other side of the ball, Shaun Alexander is a machine, leading the league in yards and touchdowns, and the Seahawk passing game is none too shabby. Dallas is more balanced and the Bledsoe led offense should do well against the middle of the road Seattle defense. Bledsoe's weakness has always been interceptions, of which he has thrown far too many. But the Seahawks are not strong in that area, having only pulled in 3 all year. They don't get too many turnovers, period. Prediction: Cowboys.

Bills @ Raiders
The Bay area just isn't doing well this year, are they? Buffalo has been rejuvenated by the change at QB (you can hear Drew Bledsoe laughing from here at the quick demotion of Losman). The Raider offense just isn't good enough, especially without Moss, to handle the Bill defense. Prediction: Bills.

Titans @ Cardinals
Who will quarterback the Cardinals? McCown has done quite well in place of Kurt Warner. I expect Kurt will be back, though, though Green was never shy about replacing quarterbacks. Warner just seems more of his type of QB, and Green clearly doesn't have the faith in Josh that he did when he took the coaching job in Arizona. The Titans, whom Warner defeated in the Super Bowl many years ago, are struggling this year, but the offense is still reasonably effective. Neither team is much on defense. Tennessee has, perhaps, the better offense. But Arizona plays well at home, and the opposition struggles. Prediction: Cardinals.

Ravens @ Bears
Two strong defenses, two toothless offenses. Ooh boy, this will be exciting. Actually, Kyle Orton is quietly having a not-too-bad season. Take away his performance against the Bengals and Orton has 4 TD against just 2 interceptions and a quite respectable rating (I won't attempt to estimate it, but his last two games have both been 84.9 and against Detroit his rating was 103.3). For the NFC North, those are Hall of Fame numbers. And the Bears, at a whopping 2-3, sit atop the division. The Ravens just don't have much of anything on offense. So the Bears will claw their way to .500 on their way to 7-9 and the division crown. Prediction: Bears.

Broncos @ Giants
The last two seasons, Denver has made the playoffs as a wildcard only to go down in flames at the hands of a QB named Manning. This week, they go against the other Manning, you know, the one putting up the better numbers this year. Both teams have high powered offenses, but the Broncos can also play defense. That should give them the edge. But can they actually put away an opponent this week? The last two games have been tough, both against division leaders (Washington and New England), so what toll with that take on Denver? I will go with my gut on this one, and go with New York. Denver is due for a letdown and the Manning family rolls on. Prediction: Giants.

Jets @ Falcons
Vick should be back for this one and will prove too much for the Jet defense. The Falcon defense will prove too strong for the senior set in green. Prediction: Falcons.

Last Week: 10-4
Season: 48-40

Harriet Miers, Clueless

Michelle Malkin has a pretty good summary of Miers' response to the questionnaire submitted to the Judiciary Committee as a means of buttressing her basic qualifications in the area of constitutional law.

I have stayed away from the depressing and divisive subject of Harriet Miers for a few days. It was a healthy little respite. But things have taken yet another grim, embarrassing turn--and it is becoming increasingly difficult to imagine that this nomination will make it to the scheduled Nov. 7 Senate hearing date.

First, if you haven't already read it, check out Miers' 57-page questionnaire (in PDF via NRO), which she submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The blogosphere has brutally dissected Miers' answers, non-answers, and unintelligible gibberish. See, for example, Steve Bainbridge, Prawfsblawg, Victor Fleischer, James Lindgren, Patterico, and Bench Memos.

Now, Sens. Arlen Specter and Pat Leahy have rendered their verdict: They want a do-over. Words like 'underwhelming,' 'inadequate,' and 'insulting' are streaming out of Washington. And it's not just from the lips and keyboards of elitist/sexist pundits.

Miers doesn't appear to actually know what's in the constitution. The Washington Post article Malkin dissects includes this gem:

Meanwhile, several constitutional law scholars said they were surprised and puzzled by Miers's response to the committee's request for information on cases she has handled dealing with constitutional issues. In describing one matter on the Dallas City Council, Miers referred to "the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause" as it relates to the Voting Rights Act.

"There is no proportional representation requirement in the Equal Protection Clause," said Cass R. Sunstein, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. He and several other scholars said it appeared that Miers was confusing proportional representation -- which typically deals with ethnic groups having members on elected bodies -- with the one-man, one-vote Supreme Court ruling that requires, for example, legislative districts to have equal populations.

After pointing out another head-scratcher from Miers, Malkin writes,

As a non-elite, non-lawyer, non-Beltway pundit might put it: "What the...?!?" If this bizarre gaffe is supposed to demonstrate Miers' sharp legal mind and painstaking attention to detail, God help us all.

That pretty much sums it up. God help us.

Political Wire: Americans Doubt Bush But Don't Embrace Democrats

Political Wire quotes the results of a recent poll:

"Americans are increasingly pessimistic about the direction of the country, less supportive of President Bush’s policies and doubtful of his competence in appointing key officials," the latest Diageo/Hotline poll finds. "At the same time, there has been no major shift in support for Democrats."

Yet more proof that the Democrats need to actually stand for something and earn voter support rather than simply standing back and watching Bush flap in the wind. Or maybe it's time we just ditch the two equally useless parties entirely.

Oracle Buys InnoDB

Oracle is on the move again. Recently they purchased both Siebel and PeopleSoft, popular developers of CRM software competing with its own similar package. Now they have purchased a Finnish company that provides the InnoDB engine to the MySQL database, an increasingly popular competitor to Oracle's database system. It should be noted that MySQL has close ties to SAP, yet another developer of CRM software.

It's an interesting and shrewd move by Oracle. For relatively little money they acquire a key component of a competitor's software, giving them a big voice at the table. InnoDB is not the only engine within MySQL, but it is the engine that provides key functionality to its database management. MySQL's main engine provides basic query capability and is geared toward data that does not change often and is therefore optimized for reading. But business applications and larger databases need functions like transaction management, referential integrity, and row-level locking, which InnoDB provides.

What no one knows, of course, is what this move means for the future of MySQL. Oracle has promised to continue providing InnoDB to MySQL, but the terms are not clear. MySQL could simply discontinue its association wth InnoDB and develop the software, being open source, itself. What is clear is that Oracle is becoming quite the beast in the realm of business software.

The Democrats' Problems

Michael Barone has an in-depth article summarizing a paper by Bill Galston and Elaine Kamarck describing the flaws in Democratic party strategy. For example, the authors debunk four myths key to Democratic strategies, but also wrong. For example, one I've tried to argue many times on this blog:

The myth of language, Berkeley Prof. George Lakoff's argument that Democrats need to present their positions in more-attractive language. No, say Galston and Kamarck, substance is the problem.

"Democrats are in trouble today, not only because their candidates have lacked compelling 'narratives' that resonate with voters but because they lack a coherent approach to foreign policy, espouse positions on key social issues that strong majorities of the electorate reject, and lack compelling economic proposals that speak to the new economic challenges of the 21st century." Whew.

Another point I've made before:

Galston and Kamarck seem to believe that the Democrats' chief problem is that too large a part of their constituency, and their primary electorate, is made up of liberals who reject values and positions held by large majorities of Americans.

...

"While social issues and defense dominate today's political terrain, it is in these areas that liberals espouse views diverging not only from those of other Democrats but from Americans as a whole. To the extent that liberals now comprise the largest bloc within the Democratic coalition and the public face of the party, Democratic candidates for national office will be running uphill."

If the Democrats want to exploit this moment in history, with the Republican coalition splintering, they should pay attention to this paper and act on it.

Politics at a Crossroads

Over the course of the year, it has been noted by several conservative bloggers that the coalition inside the Republican party is splintering. Bush has alienated the classic conservatives by expanding government and increasing spending, the neocons by bungling the Iraq war, and now the theocons by nominating Miers to the Supreme Court. A couple of months ago, I commented on an article discussing the political legacy of 1964. There appear to be parallels between 1964 and today, which leads me to think American politics is at a crossroads and major changes could be on the way.

The Democratic party of JFK, LBJ, and FDR was a coalition, broadly speaking, of northern liberals and southern white conservatives. These disparate groups managed to sublimate their ideological differences to present a unified party, leading to a virtual monopoly on the White House from the elections of 1932 through 1964. For most of that run, Democratic presidents balanced the divergent interests of the party's coalition, being careful to not push any group too hard. So, for example, both FDR and Truman touched on civil rights, but never too hard so as to drive away the southern whites. (Truman pushed too hard and it gave rise to the Dixiecrats in 1948, and nearly cost him re-election.) Johnson's presidency was the swan song of that era, and of that coalition. By pushing a more liberal social policy, Johnson brought the internal differences between the different wings of the party to the fore, ultimately forcing the southern white conservatives out of the party and into the arms of the Republicans. By making a mess of Vietnam, Johnson alienated the more hawkish elements of the Democratic establishment. LBJ went from being a leading light in the party to standing alone in the ashes of that party.

Beginning with the 1968 election, the Republican party has been a coalition of, broadly speaking, fiscal and social conservatives. These groups have managed to sublimate their ideological differences to present a unified party, leading to a virtual monopoly on the White House from 1968 through the present. Leading lights like Nixon and Reagan managed to balance the interests of the party's constituency and keep everyone happy. But this appears to be coming to an end with Bush.

So the Republican party looks to be in a situation very reminiscent of where the Democrats found themselves in 1968. But here, the parallels appear to cease. As the Democrats were falling apart, the Republican party found new voices, including Goldwater, Nixon, and Reagan, who rallied their party and remade it with a new coalition of ideologies that they lead to dominance. Nixon's re-election in 1972, while forever overshadowed by the Watergate breakin the took place during the campaign, stands as the monument to the complete overhaul of American politics. After decades of Democratic control, a Republican won in a huge landslide.

Who are the comparable voices in the Democratic party today? There are none. Since Bill Clinton left the stage, no one has risen to truly lead the party. The Democrats are adrift with no clear concept of what they stand for. It seems to me the time is ripe for a transformation of the party to a party more in line with the New Democrats, fiscally conservative and moderately liberal socially, which would bring in the disaffected Republican conservatives. But no such leader has appeared to lead that transformation and complete what Clinton started. If the Democrats want to return to power, it's time for a Democratic Reagan to rise up.

NFL 2005 Week 6 Predictions

Another week in the black. Yeah! After a slow start this season, I'm actually doing better these last two weeks than I did the comparable weeks last season. Unfortunately, week 6 last year was one of my best (11 right) so it's quite a challenge to keep my streak going.

Onto this week....

Falcons @ Saints
After getting dismantled by the Packers, the Saints get the task of facing the Falcons. After showing some spirit to open the season, the Saints appear to be mailing it in. Prediction: Falcons.

Bengals @ Titans
Tennessee certainly still has some offensive potential, but their defense is miserable and are completely not up to the task of stopping the Bengals. Chad Johnson shouldn't be making a spectacle of himself this week, at least not in the bad way he did last week. Prediction: Bengals.

Jaguars @ Steelers
Pittsburghers are breathing a huge sigh of relief this week with Big Ben's knee injury less severe than originally thought. He might even play this week. Even if he doesn't, the Steeler offense is much better than the Jaguars'. With both teams having good defenses, that will make the difference in a low scoring game. Prediction: Steelers.

Vikings @ Bears
The Vikings are reeling yet again this year. It's so bad that they have hired two new coaches and Tice is now officially on the hot seat. If their play on the field weren't bad enough, the team faces legal problems against some key players, including Fred Smoot and Mewelde Moore, which has been a distraction for the team this week. The Viking problems on the field include poor play calling by the new offensive coordinator and poor play by the offensive line, which has resulted in too many sacks and Culpepper getting a case of happy feet. Lack of a running game hasn't helped. Expect the Bears, with their strong, aggressive defense, to exploit all of these problems. But, while the Bears have a good defense, their offense is impotent. And their starting running back may be out. So expect an ugly, low scoring game, with the Vikings pulling out a sloppy win. Prediction: Vikings.

Redskins @ Chiefs
KC started the season on fire, with their usual high scoring offense and a promising defense. That fire has gone up in smoke, with the offense only mustering 10 points against Denver one week, and the defense blowing a huge lead over the Eagles the next. The Chiefs need to get back on track. The Redskins were shown the other side of playing close games, losing a nail-biter to the Broncos before taking last week off. The Redskin defense, one of the best, will slow down the Chief assault, but the Redskin offense will again not be up to the task. Prediction: Chiefs.

Panthers @ Lions
This will be a good test for the Lions, who find themselves atop the miserable NFC North. If they want their position to be taken seriously, they will have to beat quality opposition. Carolina looks to be hitting something of a rhythm, though their defense continues to give up too many points. Josh McCown putting up 394 yards and 2 TD's? This against a team many picked to be among the elite of the NFC, to the extent that there is an elite in the NFC? Not this week. Prediction: Panthers.

Browns @ Ravens
The Ravens have struggled to find any production at quarterback since they released Trent Dilfer after their Super Bowl win. Dilfer is now the starter in Cleveland and is having a quite decent season for a fairly lousy team. The Raven defense is a far cry from what it was in its heyday. The only opponent they've held below 24 points was the Jets, who played the game with a third string QB. They rank 19th in points per game. The Browns, under Dilfer, are able to put up points, not in huge numbers but enough. Prediction: Browns.

Dolphins @ Bucs
Ricky Williams returns. The Auburn rookie RB twins are reunited. With all the headlines dealing with the running backs, you might forget this is a game featuring two pretty evenly matched and balanced teams. Both have good defenses, good running games, and good passing games. But Miami has the better passing game. Griese is good, but struggled a bit without the Cadillac running game. With Cadillac out, the Dolphins will have the better running game too, unless they try to get too much from Williams. Ricky should be used in a supporting role, spelling Brown, or in two back situations. If they try to make him the lead runner, it will backfire. Prediction: Dolphins.

Giants @ Cowboys
For some reason, games with Parcells going against the Giants get a lot less hype than when he goes up against his other former teams. Maybe it's just the passage of time, but it's still curious. I am impressed with Dallas this year. Taking the training wheels off the offense last week, the Cowboys obliterated the defending NFC champs. Bledsoe looked great, the receivers looked great, and the running game looked great. With the offense cruising, the defense was free to be more aggressive. It certainly paid off. Of course, the Giants are having a pretty good year too, with Eli Manning posting better passing stats than his MVP brother. I think the game comes down to defense, and I like Dallas' better. Prediction: Cowboys.

Jets @ Bills
A game to decide the worst team in the AFC East. How exciting. With Holcomb running the offense, the Bills are the better team on both sides of the ball. Prediction: Bills.

Patriots @ Denver
The Patriots 5 game stretch from hell comes to a close against the Broncos. (After this, they get two weeks off--a bye and the Bills--before taking on the Colts.) As I expected, the pity party being thrown for New England raised their ire quite a bit and they defeated the Falcons. Hmm. New England winning a game on a last second field goal from Vinatieri. See, they just keep finding new ways to win. Anyway, what didn't get as much attention from the Falcon game is that the Patriots blew big leads twice in the game, which necessitated the kicking heroics, and they gave up 300 yards passing to a backup quarterback leading a team focused on running not passing. The Pats are, frankly, starting to look a bit like the 2003 Chiefs: big time offense, lots of points scored, hole-y defense, lots of points allowed. Denver is the type of team that will give New England fits. Plummer is having a fine year throwing, the Bronco running game is good as always, and they are playing solid defense. Plus this game is in Denver, where the Broncos have a fantastic home field advantage. (By the way, at this point, I see the Patriots as a 10-6 team, division winner, winning a wild-card playoff game and falling to Pittsburgh or Indy in the divisional round.) Prediction: Broncos.

Chargers @ Raiders
The Raiders have a very good pass offense. The best way to beat such a team is, not by playing great pass defense, though that certainly helps, but by controlling the time of possession with an effective running game. San Diego certainly has that. And they have the defense. Oakland is just too one-dimensional. Prediction: Chargers.

Texans @ Seahawks
Imagine that, the Seahawks starting to play consistent football and winning on the road. I told you in my preseason predictions that my giving up on them meant they would go to the Super Bowl. I won't go that far yet, but they are certainly looking better and better. The Texans are horrible. All these years and they still haven't put together a decent offensive line to protect their franchise QB? With all Carr has had to endure, the Texans should show him some mercy and release him so he can try to find a team than can protect him. Prediction: Seahawks.

Rams @ Colts
Finally, a good test for the Colt defense. Indy's defense leads the league in points allowed, an absolutely astonishing 5.8 points per game. They are #2 in the interceptions (8), #1 in interceptions returned for touchdowns (2), #1 in sacks (20), and #1 in forced fumbles (7). (And in case anyone forgot, they have a decent offense too.) But, in fairness, they haven't exactly faced any offensive juggernauts. The Rams certainly know a thing or two about scoring points. Unfortunately, they know nothing about defense. Prediction: Colts.

Last Week: 8-6
Season: 38-36

Small Government Conservatism?

Remember when being a conservative meant you believed in small government and less spending? Remember Bill Clinton's famous State of the Union opening, "The era of big government is over." Nick Gillespie documents that President Bush has presided over a bigger expansion of government spending than the king of all spenders, LBJ!

United States Wants Action, Not Words for Darfur

Interesting memo from the US State Department.

In an effort to emphasize that the Security Council must be more active in trying to improve security in Sudan's Darfur region, the United States blocked a briefing by a U.N. human rights envoy October 10.

Rather than endure another series of briefings on what is happening in Darfur, "the United States, China, Algeria and Russia prevented Juan Mendez, U.N. special adviser for the prevention of genocide, from conducting a separate briefing on his recent visit to Darfur." Controversial ambassador Bolton said, "We have to consider whether the sanctions that are in place are working or whether there are other steps the council should take, steps other than talking."

Imagine that, the UN actually doing something rather than just having briefing after briefing. As Bolton asked, "How many officials from the secretariat does it take to give a briefing?" Rather than wringing their hands, it's time to do something.

The Coalition for Darfur has more.

"We sat in here more than 25 minutes talking about process, who is going to sit in what chair and who was going to brief us when it's a security situation in Sudan, deteriorating," said the official, pointing with his thumb back to the chambers. "Yet you hear all around the table the statements that were made. These statements could have been written four months ago.

"No one was reacting to anything new," he continued. "It was process, process, process. What does the council issue next? What kind of statement do we make, a press statement? Who is going to brief us? Why should we brief? Where should the person sit? When can we react to the briefing?"

Coalition for Darfur: Katrina and Darfur

This week's Coalition for Darfur post (I never got an email for one last week) compares the coverage and reality of Katrina and Darfur.

When Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast last month, the American public was privy to 'round-the-clock media coverage of the disaster, especially of stories relating to the extraordinarily difficult living conditions faced by those who had been unable to evacuate. Thousands of people were left without food or water for days; their homes and cities destroyed, they were left to fend for themselves, trapped in squalid conditions and at the mercy of roving gangs of well-armed criminals.

As it turned out, many of the more horrific stories were later found to be false. Yet for the people of Darfur, the horrors that befell the people of New Orleans have become a way of life.

The post-Hurricane nightmare faced by the victims of Katrina has been the reality in Darfur for more than two years - and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

The Economic Impact of Health Care Costs

It has been reported

General Motors Corp. and the United Auto Workers union appear headed for a historic clash as spiraling health care costs seemingly threaten the very survival of the world's largest carmaker.

GM reported Tuesday it lost $1.1 billion in the first quarter, its largest quarterly loss in more than a decade, and it cited the cost of providing health coverage for its workers and retirees as a main culprit.

The key point here is that the cost of health care threatens to drive one of the nations largest companies out of business. Hewitt Associates predicts an annual increase in the cost of health care to employers of about 10%. To be fair, that is the lowest rate of growth since 1999. But that rate is about 3 times the growth rate of wages. It is also worth noting that out of pocket expenses are growing faster (11.5%), reflecting that companies are shifting more of the cost to employees. Hewitt estimates that these increased costs will consume about one quarter of an employee's salary increase.

As I argued last year, the skyrocketing cost of health care is a serious economic issue.

Providing insurance to new employees is a significant cost for an employer to bear, and so becomes a disincentive to hire people. I believe this is one of the reasons unemployment has stubbornly refused to fall back to the levels seen in the Clinton years when insurance costs were much lower. It is much more costly for companies to hire people today relative to the boom times of the 90's, so employers are less inclined to do so. As costs continue to explode, unemployment will increase, dragging the economy down. Shifting the cost more to employees, while helping the employer, will reduce the amount of disposable income in the marketplace, resulting in a reduction of spending and consumption, again dragging the economy down.

And still the president and Congress do nothing.

Political Wire: The Case for Kerry in 2008

Political Wire reports that John Kerry may run again in 2008. Not too surprising, I guess. One of the keys to the case for Kerry is that he "understands why he lost. Strategists in his camp say if he does run again, the campaign will be more nimble in responding to attacks than it was in 2004." Failing to respond to attacks is not why he lost. He lost because he had no agenda and no one really knew what he stood for and why he should be president, a point I made satirically well before the election. As I wrote in another post last year,

Even among the core of the Democratic party, Kerry's support is based, not on him or his agenda, but simply on the fact that he is not George Bush. This has become known as the ABBA (anyone but Bush again) strategy. In any campaign, ultimately the candidate has to talk about him- or herself. Simply saying "the other guy stinks" isn't going to carry a lot of weight with most less partisan voters, especially when the less partisan voters are perhaps not as convinced that the other guy really does stink. It comes down to what the candidate can offer the voters, not how bad the other guy is. If Kerry cannot even motivate his own party, the foundation of his campaign, how do you think he will do with the more centrist voter who may not be so vehemently opposed to what Bush has done as president as a hardcore Democrat?

Kerry got close to winning simply because a lot of Americans really didn't like Bush. He ran against an unpopular president and still managed to lose. If Kerry has learned any lesson from 2004, let's hope it's that.

Miers and Trust

It is very noticable that the most common argument in support of Harrier Miers to the Supreme Court is, "Trust me. She's a conservative." What's missing from that argument is any statement about qualifications. When Roberts was nominated, even those philosophically opposed to him acknowledged his credentials to sit on the court. That he was qualified was never in doubt. With Miers, all there is is doubt. Not even her supporters argue that she is qualified, just that she is a reliable conservative who will vote the way they want.

President Bush won re-election last year primarily on the argument of trust. Americans trusted him to keep them safe from terrorists, to confront our enemies, and perhaps even to manage the economy. Those calls resonated most with the religious right Republicans, the very same people now turning a deaf ear to his calls to trust him on this. The problems with Miers are a sign of just how far Bush has fallen since the election. Those who trusted him so deeply just one year ago now have little confidence in his word.

But it isn't just Bush. James Dobson is one of the leading figures of the religious right movement. Last week he was out talking about how he had met with the person who led Ms. Miers to the Lord, which is his way of saying, "Trust me. She's a good evangelical Christian. She's one of us." (So am I, and that hardly qualifies me to sit on the Court and certainly does not guarantee I would vote the way Dobson and his followers want. But I'm not talking about the stupidity of Dobson's argument.) In rejecting Bush and Miers, the religious right is also rejecting Dobson and his cadre of leaders. This seems a rather important development, but it doesn't seem to be getting much attention. The nomination of Harriet Miers may be the beginning of a changing of the guard in religious right politics.

Why is the religious right so up in arms over Miers? It could be partially that they respect the integrity of the Court and are offended that such an unqualified person would be nominated. But beyond that, in choosing a stealth nominee like Miers, the administration will avoid that confrontation with Senate Democrats they have sought all year, a confrontation over judicial philosophy that would allow the right to trigger the nuclear option. Isn't that what Dobson's Justice Sunday I and II were all about, rallying right-wing Christians to demand an end to the filibuster? Marvin Olasky writes, "A whole lot of evangelical conservatives were eager for a rumble, to really fight it out with the devilish Dems." They were thwarted by the so-called gang of 14 earlier this year, and now by Bush in choosing two nominees, neither of whom would trigger vehement Democratic opposition. Having been rejected in what has become such a driving issue for the religious right, they are turning on their leaders. Frustration over a lost opportunity to confront the Democrats is just the latest in a growing list of disappointments, as the New York Times documents.

NFL 2005 Week 5 Predictions

It's always good to have a good week, and going 9-5 counts as a good week.

With New England dropping to 2-2 and looking more vulnerable than they have since before their run of greatness, some are saying it's about time the Patriots fell back to Earth and let someone else win, that it's bad for the league to have one team dominate so much. Well, the NFL survived the Steeler reign in the 70's and the Cowboys' dominance in the 90's. I understand the argument for parity. I can just imagine what it was like for fans back in the 70's, knowing every season that if your team wasn't in Pittsburgh, Oakland, Dallas, Minnesota, or Los Angeles, you weren't going to win a division title or play in the Super Bowl. In those 10 years (Super Bowls V-XIV), the NFC was represented in the big game by either the Cowboys or the Vikings 8 times. The AFC was a little more diverse, with Miami and Pittsburgh only accounting for 7 of the 10 games. While Oakland didn't go to too many Super Bowls, they sure lost quite a few AFC title games, as did the Rams in the NFC. If you were a fan of the Browns or Lions or anyone else, you knew before the season even started your team was playing for the lone wildcard spot.

Nowadays, each season starts fresh. Teams come out of nowhere to win Super Bowls. In the last five years, only two teams (Eagles and Packers) have managed so much as simply winning 3 straight division titles. Clearly, this is better for fans overall.

But doesn't the league need a gold standard, even in an age of parity? If the Super Bowl was simply a carousel of winners, teams rising up for a year at random to win big, then falling away, what would that win mean? Not much more than saying their turn came up. Having pure parity would cheapen victory so much as to become meaningless. The league needs a gold standard, someone to measure themselves against. The Ravens won the title in 2000, and the Bucs in 2002. But they aren't a standard the way the Patriots, who won in 2001, 2003, and 2004 are. Do we really want to measure everyone against teams like the 2000 Ravens?

So I do support parity. It would indeed be bad for the Patriots to just keep on winning Super Bowls, or winning most and losing the occasional one. But at the same time, the league needs teams like New England to rise up and dominate the league for a time.

Onto this week....

Ravens @ Lions
On paper, this should be a matchup between a good to very good Lion offense against a good to very good Raven defense. On paper. The Lion offense is nowhere near as good as the talent level on the squad would suggest. With all those first round draft pick receivers, they should be much better. But they aren't. On the other hand, the Ravens are downright dismal on offense. The biggest mistake the franchise made in the last five years is getting rid of Trent Dilfer. With all the QBs they've gone through since, they have never gotten close to what he brought to the table. Anyway, I think the Lions have a halfway decent defense to go with a halfway decent offense, which is more than I can say for Baltimore. Prediction: Lions.

Dolphins @ Bills
Miami is a real surprise this year. They are actually in first place in the division, one shared with New England. It probably hasn't happened in two years that someone other than the Patriots held the top stop in the division all alone. The Bills are a crushing disappointment. The Losman experiment has gone about as well as one could expect, well as well as anyone outside the Bill organization would have expected. The Bill defense, the heart of the team, has been hit by injury. This really is pretty simple. Both team have good defenses, one has a good offense. Prediction: Dolphins.

Saints @ Packers
The Packer offense showed some life last week in a losing effort against the Panthers. Nearly half of Favre's 9 touchdown passes this season came in that game (4). Brett's big problem this year has been interceptions, but that shouldn't be a big problem against a weak Saint defense. Both teams have potentially explosive offenses and almost always implosive defenses. In the end, Favre is still the better quarterback. And the truth is that three of their four losses were certainly winnable. They have lost the last three games by a total of 6 points, so the Packers could easily be 2-2 right now, but for mistakes. New Orleans is not in the same class as the teams who have taken advantage of those errors to beat the Packers. Prediction: Packers.

Bucs @ Jets
The Jets start their 3rd different quarterback this week, with Testaverde coming out of retirement to replace Pennington, who replaced Testaverde a couple of years ago. The man is 41 and hasn't thrown a meaningful ball in quite a while. And they will throw him in against one of the better defenses in the league. This won't be pretty. Prediction: Bucs.

Bears @ Browns
The Bears have a good defense but nothing on offense. Cleveland, on the other hand, can be pretty effective on offense. They aren't as good on defense, but that's not a big deal against the Bear offense. Prediction: Browns.

Patriots @ Falcons
At first glance, this would seem to be a clear choice for Atlanta. The Pats got blown out last week by San Diego and were torched by the Charger running game. Their defense has been hit hard by injuries and are clearly not the unit they have been these last years. The Patriot running game continues to struggle, actually ranking last in the league, and the Falcons have a strong run defense. In fact they have a strong front seven who attack the line and create chaos in the passing game. Just ask Daunte Culpepper. Everything points to Atlanta, right? But here's what the stats don't say. The Falcon offense is extremely one dimensional. Granted, what they do with that one dimension (running) is fantastic. But it's still just one thing. Take that away and you take the Falcon offense away. The Chargers feature a robust, mutli-headed offense with strong running and several targets in the passing game. The Falcons have none of that. So, rather than having to dial back their linebackers' aggressive attacking play to help out the weak secondary, the Patriot defensive front can do what they do best which is attack the line and the run. Blitz Brady? He's seen that many times. Unlike Minnesota, which emphasizes the big downfield pass, Brady can just hit his hot reads for short passes which will then force the Falcon defense to play back a bit, opening up the running game and the deep pass. And the biggest intangible of all: Patriot attitude. There were several articles in the past week expressing sympathy and even pity for the Patriots because of injuries. Do you think the Patriot players and coaches politely thanked all those people for their best wishes? Or do you think there might be more of an attitude of, "These people #*$%^&ing#@%^&ing PITY us! We're the %^*!#ing PATRIOTS and we'll show you where you shove your PITY!" Prediction: Patriots.

Seahawks @ Rams
The Seahawks have Rams on the brain. Last year's season started so well for Seattle, until the 4th quarter of their first matchup with their division rivals from St. Louis. After blowing a huge lead in that game, the 'Hawks never recovered and their promising season went to 9-7 and got a playoff spot only because they play in (a) the NFC West, the division no one wanted to win, and (b) the NFC in general. The run included a second loss to St. Louis, and a third in the playoffs. The Seahawks have a mental problem similar to the Vikings: they don't respond well to adversity. This time, they are coming off a sloppy loss to the Redskins. And if that weren't bad enough, the Rams have an excellent home record. Prediction: Rams.

Titans @ Texans
The battle for the bottom of the AFC South begins. I don't know how to predict this game. The Titans have given up a mountain of points, but have also scored a lot. But the caliber of opposing offense has to be taken into consideration when looking at points allowed. The Texans have given up fewer points, but have scored next to nothing. But the caliber of opposing defense has to be taken into consideration when looking at points scored. I'll go with the home team. Prediction: Texans.

Colts @ 49ers
Oh my. Just what the struggling 49ers needed, a visit from perhaps the best team in the league. And they will start a rookie making his first start at QB. My only question is, will this be over in the first quarter, or will the 49ers hang in until halftime? Prediction: Colts.

Eagles @ Cowboys
This should be a good game. The Eagle defense has given up a lot of points the last two weeks, playing some very good offenses in Oakland and KC. Dallas' defense has done a decent job, excepting the 49er game, in terms of points allowed. Of course, Philly has the higher ranked pass defense, which shows how rankings can be deceptive. The Eagle defensive front has accumulated a good number of sacks this year. So they will bring a whole lot of pressure to granite footed QB Drew Bledsoe. (Dallas has too, but the Eagle offensive line is much better.) That will lead to mistakes and turnovers, and an Eagle win. Prediction: Eagles.

Panthers @ Cardinals
The Panthers are off to an inconsistent start, and a visit to the Cardinals is just what the doctor ordered to get them on track. Prediction: Panthers.

Redskins @ Broncos
Can you believe it? A Redskin team with Mark Brunell at QB actually scored 20 points! Amazing! This game will feature two good defenses, and one good offense. Denver won't score as much as it usually does, but they may only need 14 points to win. Prediction: Broncos.

Bengals @ Jaguars
The Bengals are off to an impressive 4-0 start, but this will be the first quality opponent they have faced. Their offense is one of the best, and the defense is starting to come together. The Jags have a better defense, and Leftwich is one of the better QBs in the league. But they don't have enough weapons on offense. The passing game is almost all Jimmy Smith. This is why they have not done very well against better defenses (3 points against the Colts, 7 points against the Broncos). Prediction: Bengals.

Steelers @ Chargers
San Diego looks pretty dangerous. Coach Schottenheimer has finally retired Marty-ball, allowing his offense to take full advantage of the numerous weapons available. Drew Brees looks to have solidified his position as the franchise quarterback, which of course presents the problem of what to do with Philip Rivers. LT is perhaps the best running back in the game today. Facing this powerhouse offense is Pittsburgh's patented powerhouse defense. Interestingly, at least from a rankings point of view, both defenses are similar: strong against the rush (11th and 7th for the Steelers and Chargers respectively) and weaker against the pass (20th and 26th respectively). So, the game really appears to come down to the two QBs and their passing game. Here, I have to give the edge to Pittsburgh. Brees is the better quarterback, but Roethlisberger has a better receiving corps and the Steeler defense has Troy Polamalu. Prediction: Steelers.

Last Week: 9-5
Season: 30-30

Conservatism of Bush

(Yes, the title is a pun.) Heraldblog asks

Is this what modern-day conservatism under Bush has come down to? Concern over the sex-life of 60-year-old women? The thing speaks for itself.

Wouldn't it be seriously amusing to see Republican senators grilling Miss Meir's about her love life over the last 40 years? Heraldblog predicts an SNL sketch.

Stopping Torture

Andrew Sullivan quotes Senator McCain's very eloquent and passionate statement in support of his legislation, passed in the Senate by a vote of 90-9, to bar US soldiers from committing acts of torture and abuse that our president has allowed. He also quotes former Secretary of State Colin Powell's letter to the senator, expressing his support for the legislation. Of course our highly so-called moral president doesn't want to be told he can't torture and abuse whoever he wants, so he has threatened to veto the legislation.

Arrogant and Insecure

Sullivan writes of Bush

One more thought. Bush is a deeply arrogant and insecure person (the qualities go together), a man who refuses to cower in the face of criticism. This can be a good thing, as in his tenacity in the war on terror. But it is also a hubristic flaw - evident as early as "Mission Accomplished" - which has only been reinforced by his re-election. The one thing that could motivate him to appoint a crony as obviously unqualified as Miers is precisely to stick a finger in the eye of those accusing him of cronyism. Tell him we need more troops in Iraq? It's the one thing he won't do. Tell him he's a big spender? We get: "It's going to cost whatever it costs." Tell him he has botched the Iraq occupation? He'll give the architects Medals of Freedom. There's an adolescent streak of pure willfulness in the man. He cannot and will not self-correct. If pushed into a corner, he will simply repeat the error in order to prove himself immune to criticism. We had one chance to correct this - the only one he understands. And he got away with re-election after four years of spectacular, unconservative incompetence. I'm afraid I have limited sympathy for those complaining conservatives who were silent when it mattered, and are now living with the consequences.

Cronyism

Harriet Miers has been nominated to the Supreme Court. Her only apparent qualification for this high honor is that she has been President Bush's personal lawyer for a while. Reading through her profile in the Washington Post emphasizes her personal relationship with Bush constantly, her legal qualifications hardly at all. Haven't we had enough of Bush's cronyism at FEMA? Do we really need it now on the Supreme Court, for perhaps decades to come? After a pretty shrewd choice in Roberts, the president has really dropped the ball here.

Commander-in-Chief

I watched the new Geena Davis show Commander-in-Chief last night. As soon as I saw ads for it, I thought, "They are softening up America for Hillary's run in 2008." With that mind, it was kind of funny to hear all the rips into Hillary during the show, in particular in the sequence where Kyle Secor's character is introduced to his First Lady duties. I guess that's the shows attempt to say, "See, we're not working for Hillary."

The show is produced by Rod Lurie, director of the film The Contender. Lurie, an unabashed Hollywood liberal, promises the show will not be a soapbox for liberalism and will be balanced. So I had to chuckle at a few points. When Davis' President is sworn in, she and her family are unable to find a Bible, and is forced to use the one the conservative House Speaker (Donald Sutherland) apparently just happens to carry with him wherever he goes. At another point, a member of then Vice President Allen's staff describes what a new conservative president would mean: the return of book burning, creationism in the classroom and invading every Third World country.

That last bit is made even more humorous by subsequent events. We can assume that invading Third World countries is considered a bad thing in Allen's circle. So, what's her first act as president? She sends the Marines into an African country (Third World) to forcibly extricate a woman about to be executed. Why she does this is never explained. But the point is, sending fully armed Marines in gunships into a foreign country would constitute an invasion of that country. So her first act as president is to violate her own beliefs.

This incident reminded me of an episode of Yes Prime Minister. To get some positive media coverage, the PM sends in the army to rescue a dog who has gotten stranded somewhere, on a firing range I think. (It's been a long time since I've seen the shows.) Then Hacker gets hit with the bill for the operation, which is pretty big.

In Commander-in-Chief, Allen redeploys the Navy and sends in a small invasion force of Marines aboard helicopter gunships to take out some anonymous woman and her baby. At no point in the show does anyone question the cost of this operation, which I am sure is considerable. I guess that's what a proper presidency should look like from Lurie's point of view: do whatever is right, who cares about how much it costs. So why do they want to get rid of Bush?

Anatomy of a Photograph

Zombie presents an interesting study of a lead photograph a San Francisco Chronicle article. It shows the importance of context in understanding anything and everything.

But this simple analysis reveals the very subtle but insidious type of bias that occurs in the media all the time. The Chronicle did not print an inaccuracy, nor did it doctor a photograph to misrepresent the facts. Instead, the Chronicle committed the sin of omission: it told you the truth, but it didn't tell you the whole truth.

Because the whole truth -- that the girl was part of a group of naive teenagers recruited by Communist activists to wear terrorist-style bandannas and carry Palestinian flags and obscene placards -- is disturbing, and doesn't conform to the narrative that the Chronicle is trying to promote. By presenting the photo out of context, and only showing the one image that suits its purpose, the Chronicle is intentionally manipulating the reader's impression of the rally, and the rally's intent.

Such tactics -- in the no-man's-land between ethical and unethical -- are commonplace in the media, and have been for decades. It is only now, with the advent of citizen journalism, that we can at last begin to see the whole story and realize that the public has been manipulated like this all along.