There’s probably not much point in detailed explanations for each game, because my take mirrors the consensus so closely. I don’t see either AFC game as being competitive, and don’t think Jacksonville and (especially) the Chargers — probably without Gates and definitely with Norv Turner — will even cover the large spreads. The Giants/Cowboys game is tricky, and not only because if forces me to cheer for the Giants. If healthy, the Cowboys will win easily, but if Romo and Owens are a lot less than 100% — who knows. Given Owens’s performance after a much more serious injury in the Super Bowl and because I don’t believe in Manning (although he did play very well last week, and the Cowboys are vulnerable to his ability to hit Burress deep) I’d pick the Cowboys to cover, but I wouldn’t actually bet on the game unless you had some inside injury information.
Which leaves us with Seattle/Green Bay. While the Seahawks used to be very underrated, that’s no longer really the case; they seem to be a trendy upset pick. Based strictly on this year’s performance, that’s probably not really justified; the Packers have been better against a much tougher schedule. And Hasselbeck’s performance against the Redskins doesn’t inspire confidence. If I wanted to be optimistic, I would say that 1)the biggest difference between this Seattle team and the Super Bowl team is that the pass defense is better and the running game is worse, and in the modern game the former is a lot more important, and 2)they have a high-INT secondary against a QB prone to making low-odds throws. On the other hand, Green Bay seems to have the ability to neutralize Seattle’s pass rush, which is a serious problem. I guess I’d take the 8 points and pick Seattle, but probably expect Green Bay to win the game outright.
…can’t complain about that start!
…Except for the whole Deion Branch getting injured thing.
It’s good that the severe gender issues of MSNBC’s election night anchor are finally getting some attention. The whole piece is worth reading, but I think Jamison Foer makes the key point here:
Think about this for a second: Chris Matthews is holding it against Hillary Clinton that her husband cheated on her. But he doesn’t hold it against John McCain and Rudy Giuliani that they cheated on their spouses. Matthews seems to think women are to blame when their husbands have affairs — and men who cheat on their spouses are blameless.
And then there’s Matthews’ fixation on Hillary Clinton’s “ambition.” In December 1999, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson appeared on Hardball to discuss Clinton’s Senate campaign. Matthews asked Wolfson eight consecutive questions about whether Clinton was “ambitious.” Finally, Matthews said, “People who seek political power are ambitious by definition,” leading Wolfson to tell him: “if you say so. If it will make you happy, I’ll agree.” If Matthews has ever displayed as much interest in the “ambition” of male candidates like John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, or Mike Huckabee, he has done so in private.
Right. Somehow St. McCain’s extensive adultery, benefiting from family connections, and ambition strong enough that according to Matt Welch’s new book he bought a house in an Arizona congressional district the day the incumbent retired never get Matthews’s attention, but the fact that Clinton’s husband committed adultery is supposed to be a major issue. And I don’t mean to say that there’s anything wrong with ignoring these aspects of McCain — accusing a presidential candidate of ambition is tautological — but the double standard couldn’t be more glaring.
The news that Jonathan Stewart will skip his senior season and enter the NFL draft is obviously disappointing as a Duck fan. On the other hand, I can hardly begrudge a young man the chance to make money for himself, rather than for the UO, the Pac-10, and the NCAA.
Judith Warner is on a wave-making roll with her Domestic Disturbances column in the NY Times. Today she takes on the voice quiver heard ’round the world and asks: why did it matter so much to the New Hampshire primary voters that Clinton cried (or almost did)?
I don’t for a moment begrudge Hillary her victory on Tuesday. But if victory came for the reasons we’ve been led to believe – because women voters ultimately saw in her, exhausted and near defeat, a countenance that mirrored their own – then I hate what that victory says about the state of their lives and the nature of the emotions they carry forward into this race. I hate the thought that women feel beaten down, backed into a corner, overwhelmed and near to breaking point, as Hillary appeared to be in the debate Saturday night. And I hate even more that they’ve got to see a strong, smart and savvy woman cut down to size before they can embrace her as one of their own.
I can definitely echo Warner’s discomfort with the line the MSM is feeding us — that Clinton won in New Hampshire because she showed some emotion. And I too have been scratching my head over why, if indeed that is how Clinton picked up the votes, women thought that the tears were a positive development in Clinton’s candidacy.
But I’m not so sure that it was the tears. And if it was, I’m not so ready to pile all the blame on the voters (though certainly they play a role). What about the media that has created this Hillary persona to begin with. While I disagreed with Gloria Steinem’s piece the other day, it does at time seem like a lose-lose for a female candidate: either she’s tough enough to run with the male candidates and too tough to win, or she’s not tough enough to have power over our military and have her finger on the button but she’s now sensitive enough to win.
As some of Warner’s commenters point out, maybe she’s got a little of her own voter narcissism going on in her column. Whatever her angle, I think she’s right to point out that if it is indeed the tears that allowed Hillary to win, we’ve got some serious soul searching to do.
[K:] You’ve talked about Mussolini remaining on the left and remaining a socialist, and in your book you’ve got a lot of quotes from the 1920s about that, but I’m wondering — how does that fit in with what he wrote and said later, especially “The Doctrine of Fascism” in 1932?
[DP:]I’d need to know specifically what he wrote in “The Doctrine of Fascism.” It’s been about three years since I’ve read it.
If you don’t know what’s in La Dottrina del Fascismo, you should just go ahead and admit that you’ve never read the fucking thing.
[Dave Neiwert] seems to think you are less qualified to propound your thesis than, say, a tenured professor of history at some hoo-hah university. I consider that hogwash. I have read your comments and posts for several years now. I may disagree with you (a lot) — but you are every bit as qualified to research the literature and distill it into a book as any professor. I also trust you to have done what you did with diligence and integrity. That’s perhaps the most important reason I’m reading your book.
A regressive sales tax plan that (barring the creation of a massive state apparatus for investigation and enforcement) would encourage fraud, drive up government spending, and (barring a constitutional amendment to abolish an earlier constitutional amendment) give birth to yet another level to the tax bureaucracy? Why, it’s a libertarian’s wet dream!
…UPDATE (BY SL): Jon Chaitpoints out that Landsburg also posits the potential for a progressive consumption tax, charging different amounts for different people at the cash register. Because rich people would never pay cash or use poor people as fronts to buy stuff under such a system. And three ponies!
Publius, while accepting the validity of grievances against the frequently sexist coverage of her campaign, tries to make it. To me, #1 remains the most persuasive. I think Obama might have a marginally more progressive domestic policy, but the differences are narrow enough that this could be mistaken. But it’s hard for me to get around the fact that Clinton completely botched the most important issue of the Bush era. (Moreover, I’m not willing to assume that her vote for the war was an “insincere political gamble;” that’s possible, but I think we have to accept the possibility that she voted for the war because she supported the war.) See also Ann Friedman on this issue.
And her pro-war vote is not merely problematic on the merits; it’s also bad politics. On the “Clinton electability” issue, as Ygelsias says Drum is narrowly right but takes on only the weakest version of the argument. I have never argued that Clinton is “unelectable,” and it’s likely that the structural conditions in November will make any Democratic candidate a favorite over any Republican. But this doesn’t mean that Clinton/McCain isn’t the worst plausible matchup for the Democrats. And even assuming that head-to-head polls aren’t useful at this point, the fact that Clinton took the Republican position on the most important issue and hence will be unable to exploit an issue that should favor the Dems will surely be a problem. And there are a variety of other areas in which Obama has more upside. Obama has the ability to mobilize voters who generally turn out in relatively smaller numbers, while Clinton’s core constituency (older women) already votes at disproportionately high levels. And while we don’t know for certain that Obama’s lower negatives and favorable media coverage will hold up, the worst that can happen is dropping to Clinton’s levels, and it’s more likely that he would be a better candidate than Clinton in those areas. (And I’m not arguing that conservatives won’t attack Obama; the question is how much right-wing critiques will penetrate the mainstream media and swing voters.)
Now, if you want to argue that given a candidate than can win a primary “electability” is just too unpredictable a factor to be meaningful, that’s fair enough; but I don’t really see a good progressive case for Clinton on the merits either.
Just finished my panel presentation, and I’m happy to say that I’ve achieved a new personal record in panel attendance. We had three presenters, no discussant, and two audience members (one of whom wandered in halfway through the panel). 4.5 beats the previous record of 5, set at the 1998 Pacific Northwest Political Science Association conference.
The world continues to conspire to keep the masses ignorant of Mahan, Dreadnought, and National Identity….
What happens if you give an elephant LSD? On Friday August 3, 1962, a group of Oklahoma City researchers decided to find out.
Warren Thomas, Director of the City Zoo, fired a cartridge-syringe containing 297 milligrams of LSD into Tusko the Elephant’s rump. With Thomas were two scientific colleagues from the University of Oklahoma School of Medicine, Louis Jolyon West and Chester M. Pierce.
297 milligrams is a lot of LSD — about 3000 times the level of a typical human dose. In fact, it remains the largest dose of LSD ever given to a living creature. The researchers figured that, if they were going to give an elephant LSD, they better not give him too little. . . .
Whatever the reason for the experiment, it almost immediately went awry. Tusko reacted to the shot as if a bee had stung him. He trumpeted around his pen for a few minutes, and then keeled over on his side. Horrified, the researchers tried to revive him, but about an hour later he was dead. The three scientists sheepishly concluded that, “It appears that the elephant is highly sensitive to the effects of LSD.”
There are 19 more of these, all from Alex Boese’s list of “Top 20 Most Bizarre Experiments of All Time.” Several classics from 20th century American social psychologists make the list — the Milgram and Stanford Prison experiments are included, naturally — but the Soviet scientists really take the cake. There’s Vladimir Demikhov, who grafted the head and torso of a puppy onto a German shepherd in 1954 Sergei Brukhonenko, who chopped the head off a dog and kept it alive with a crude heart-lung machine in 1928; and Ilya Ivanov, who sought in the 1930s to interbreed humans and various apes.
And the less said about Stubbins Ffirth — Philadelphia’s “vomit-drinking doctor” — the better.