One More Reason I Don't Watch Soccer

This seems awfully heavy-handed to me...

Chile's spot at the 2010 World Cup is safe after a local club withdrew legal action that had drawn the ire of FIFA and put the nation's status in international football at risk.

FIFA had given Chile's football association (ANFP) 72 hours to make Rangers drop a court case that disputed their relegation from the Clausura championship, or else risk a FIFA suspension and the prospect of forfeiting their World Cup berth.

Rangers took action after they were docked three points for fielding one too many foreign players under the Clausura's 6+5 rule. This consigned them to automatic relegation, but their dispute caused the play-offs for relegation and promotion, plus the championship's semi-finals, to be put on hold.

FIFA strictly forbids any government or civil interference in football matters, and wrote to ANFP demanding the situation be resolved. This ultimatum has proved enough for administration-struck Rangers to back down.

I won't pretend to understand international soccer. But it seems just wrong for a powerful international organization to claim they're beyond the reach of a court system, even one with parochial interests. The two issues seem utterly unrelated.

Happy Thanksgiving

Enjoy the turkey, all you non-vegetarians. Everyone enjoy the mashed potatoes, stuffing, and cranberries. And take a moment to be thankful for the fact that you've got all that food, in addition to all the friends and family with whom you'll share it.

Say It Ain't So, Joe

At this time of year, we should be thankful for Joe Biden. Without him, we wouldn't laugh nearly as much...

Vice President Joe Biden did everything short of shaking a pair of pompoms yesterday as he cheered on an economic recovery while criticizing those he hears booing from the sidelines.

"Ladies and gentlemen, things aren't good but they're getting a lot better," Biden told 500 people gathered at a fundraiser for the Committee of Seventy. "We're no longer debating whether we're going to slide into a great depression. We're debating what the shape of the recovery is. Is it robust enough from my perspective? No. Do we need to do more? Yes."

Biden's 38-minute speech covered a broad range of national issues, including education, foreign policy, the housing market and energy independence. But he focused his optimism on the economy and health-care reform while saving his ire for critics who say that President Obama's team is trying to do too much too quickly.

"We may be wrong," Biden said. "But the point is, we believe in what we're doing."

(hat tip: The Media Blog at NRO) I didn't need the vision of Joe waving pom-poms, but the last line made up for it. Folks, it's okay to be wrong and screw up the country's future, so long as you believe what you're doing.

I Would Only Bow If It were Mr. Miyagi

Gregg Easterbrook's Tuesday Morning Quarterback column takes a moment to address Barack Obama's bow before the Emporer of Japan...

The right-wing wing-nut faction is blasting Barack Obama for bowing to His Imperial Majesty the Emperor. That's how you are supposed to address the guy; you are not supposed to speak his name, Akihito. The wing-nuts are correct in this case: Americans, do not bow before royalty! That has pretty much been our policy for the past 233 years. Only the Japanese can say why Japan should still have a royal figurehead, much less with the goofy title "emperor." The United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Sweden and other nations can say why figurehead royalty still exists. But Americans don't bow to aristocrats. Our national spirit rejects the legitimacy of inherited positions.

Local custom, you say? TMQ does not much like Dick Cheney, but when he met Akihito in 2007, they shook hands. When Norman Schwarzkopf received an honorary knighthood in 1991, he said he would do so only if he were not required to kneel, because Americans do not prostrate themselves before royalty, even the royalty of good friends. Elizabeth II gave Schwarzkopf a box containing emblems of his knighthood, then they shook hands. If Akihito had bowed back to Obama, maybe that would have been OK as local custom. (You take turns bowing in Japanese culture.) If Obama had bowed to Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, the democratically elected leader of Japan, and Hatoyama had bowed back, that would have been fine -- Hatoyama represents the free choice of his people. For the democratically elected leader of the United States to humble himself before a royal who acquired his wealth and status entirely by accident of birth, while the "emperor" looks on smiling, is outlandish.

Is this a big deal in the grand scheme of things, considering everything else Obama is screwing up? No, but symbolism does mean something in the world, and this is bad. Worse, it's significant that a similar controversy occurred after a similar act in Riyadh. The fact that the President made another such error is indicative of a White House staff that is incompetent, or a President who doesn't give a crap about the issue. Either way, that's not a good thing, even if it is a small thing.

A Summary of the Times

Four immediate thoughts from when I saw this at the mall:

1. I'm guessing this is how they hired the guy who compiled the Recovery.gov numbers -- a placard in the mall. Also, Tim Geithner got his job this way.
2. Shouldn't the words "with in" be one word?
3. They should probably be more specific about the types of help they need. The words "a lot of" before "Help Wanted" would be a good start.
4. Man, the newpaper industry is in trouble when the President figures this is a better way to advertise.

We Are The Champions

My alma mater snags another national title. Now, if they can add a FCS football title in a few weeks, that might be bigger news. But kudos to the women's cross-country team regardless.

The Implications of ClimateGate

I don't know how bad the global warming scandal involving CRU is, but Iain Murray has a good article summarizing the issue. Here's the part scientists should find disturbing...

Secondly, scientists on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. In 2003, Tom Wigley of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, complained that paleoclimatologist Hans von Storch was responsible for “the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’” and that they “must get rid of von Storch” (1051190249) as an editor of the journal Climate Research (he indeed subsequently resigned).

In 2005, Michael Mann said that there was a “fundamental problem w/ GRL now,” referring to the journal Geophysical Research Letters published by the American Geophysical Union (AGU), because “they have published far too many deeply flawed contrarian papers in the past year or so” and “it is probably best to do an end run around GRL now where possible.” Tom Wigley responded that “we could go through official AGU channels to get him [the editor of GRL] ousted” (1106322460). A few months later, the editor of GRL having left his post, Mann comments, “The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/ new editorial leadership there” (1132094873).

Having seemingly succeeded with Climate Research and Geophysical Research Letters, the most recent target of the scientists’ ire has been Weather, a journal of the Royal Meteorological Society (RMS). Phil Jones commented in March 2009, “I’m having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I’ve complained about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don’t get him to back down, I won’t be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I’ll be resigning from the RMS” (1237496573).

This issue is all the more important because the scientists involved in these discussions have repeatedly accused their critics of being irrelevant because they fail to publish in the peer reviewed literature. For example, in October this year, Mr. Mann told Andy Revkin of the New York Times:

[L]egitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles, in particular the peer review process. Those such as [Stephen] McIntyre [the target of much of the criticism in the CRU Papers] who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted.

This is a real problem, as Jonah Goldberg notes...

It is clear that the scientists at the CRU were more interested in punishing dissenters and constructing a p.r. campaign than they were in actual science.

This should be considered not merely a scientific scandal but an enormous journalistic scandal. The elite press treats skepticism about global warming as a mental defect. It uses a form of the No True Scotsman fallacy to delegitimize people who dissent from the (manufactured) "consensus." Dissent is scientifically unserious, therefore dissenting scientist A is unserious. There's no way to break in. The moment someone disagrees with the "consensus" they disqualify themselves from criticizing the consensus. That's not how science is supposed to work. Skeptics who've received a tote bag from some oil company are branded as shills, but scientists who live off of climate-change-obsessed foundations or congressional fiefdoms are objective, call-it-like-they-see-it truth seekers. Question these folks and you get a Bill Murrayesque, "Back off, man. We're scientists."

Before I continue, I'd note that the efforts to delete emails to avoid British Freedom of Information laws strikes me as more egregious, but that's because of what I do for a living. What's more damning in the end is that the data may not support the conclusions that the scientists drew. We may be seeing the climate equivalent of Dan Rather's "fake but accurate" defense of the Bush Texas National Guard saga. But let's wait and see what else leaks out.

Of course, you may not read about what leaks in the left-wing dishrag, since they don't publish illegally acquire dinformation. Well, except when they involve national security in the 1970's, or now. Or Sarah Palin. Great journalistic standards there.

What Annoying Song is Stuck in My Head Today?

If I need to suffer with a song stuck in my head, why shouldn't you have to do the same? Sometimes they're good, most times they're bad... but no matter what, they make you suffer. So I like to share the suffering whenever it happens.

I went to lunch yesterday with some colleagues, and this was playing. Yes, it's Christmas season. And I am the guy who once said Christmas music should play year-round... but even I'm thinking we should exclude Wham from that playlist...



You're welcome.

The Health Care Follies Continue

Nate Silver has an interesting take on the Democrats and the health care bills. He examines the polling numbers from PPP and finds that things are bad for the Dems either way...

I don't particularly expect a boost in the Democrats' numbers if they pass a health care bill: the plan, after all, has become somewhat unpopular. Their numbers might even get a little worse. But I'd expect a larger drop in their numbers if they fail to pass health care. Then, you're getting something close to the worst of both worlds: the people who don't like health care are still going to blame you for making the effort, but the people who do like the plan will become despondent and wonder what the whole point of electing Democrats to the Congress was in the first place.

Put differently, it seems that the unpopularity of health care has already been mostly "priced in" to the Democrats' numbers -- and indeed they've paid a price for it, although the economy may still be the more important factor. But failing to pass a health care bill would not undo the damage: it would only make things worse by depressing the base, making leadership look incompetent, and producing week after week of horrible news cycles.

Sure, the "status quo" in which health care neither passes or fails might be the best case scenario for the Democrats. Better still might have been the scenario in which they'd looked at horrible unemployment numbers that rolled in month after month during the spring, and decided to forgo healthcare in lieu of more populist economic policies (something which, rumor has it, some very senior White House staff was urging back in May and June). But the Democrats can't undo six months of debate on health care. Nor can the tenuous "status quo" hold. The health care bill, to state the obvious, is either going to pass or it's going to fail -- barring something completely out of left field like a major terrorist attack or another financial collapse, it will not just go away.

Both polling and common sense would seem to dictate that the best way for Democrats to cut their losses would be to pass a health care bill -- particularly one with a public option -- and then move on to debating financial regulation and a jobs program, where public sentiment should be more on their side. They should probably not expect to gain ground if they pass health care -- but they're likely to lose more if they don't.

Nate's a smart guy, and I don't know that he's wrong on this point -- the Dems might suffer more if their base fails to come out next fall. What's left unsaid, however, is that the Dems don't seem to have a way to convince the rest of the electorate that health care reform (as embodied by the bills in existence and by whatever might pass) is a good idea. That strikes me as a bigger problem. The polling numbers seem to be pushing health care reform down below 40% in terms of popularity -- if they go much further down, then the only people who will be supporting it will be the Democratic base.

Some percentage of this relates to the economy, as Nate notes. If the jobs picture were not grim and the public believed the recession was over, health care reform might have a few more points added to its popularity. But that's not the reality that Democrats face. Still and all, they may have a better argument to make, but they haven't made it. Cue Yuval Levin...

Remember back when OMB Director Peter Orszag was on television all the time talking about reducing costs? Have you seen him lately? Me neither. The case for Obamacare as cost reduction just won’t pass the laugh test anymore, and no one seems to make it. The case for covering everyone isn’t heard all that much either, since the Democrats’ plans won’t do that. The case for improved efficiency hasn’t really survived the machinations necessary to get a bill through the House and to get another to the Senate floor — as what remains after the wheeling and dealing is anything but efficient. It seems like the only case being made to (and by) wavering Democrats in Congress now is that the bill just has to pass. History is calling, we have never been closer to agreement, this is our chance, do it for the president, and on and on. The theory is that it’s this or nothing; some combination of the Reid and Pelosi bills has to pass or else we just leave our health-care system as it is.

Levin notes that others (like Tevi Troy and Senator Tom Coburn in Forbes) make the case for alternative reforms. But I'm focused on the first part of what he noted -- the Orszag cost-control component of health care reform is no longer being emphasized. I don't think this is just the laugh-test issue, although that's important, since it is exceptionally difficult to prove to the American electorate that government programs and oversight would make operations more efficiently and less costly.

The problem with the Orszag cost controls argument is that (a) people don't believe government will actually engage in cost-cutting, and (b) they're afraid the government will. Seniors have to be scared of what the proposals mean to Medicare, and the alleged idea that they would cut the deficit while extending coverage to millions of uninsured... well, Mickey Kaus has been railing against Orszagism for months, so here's a good summary...

The old argument--Classic Orszagism--claimed simply, if enigmatically, that the solution to the budget crisis was Obama's health care reform, because somehow only when the government insured coverage for all would it have the leverage necessary to "bend the cost curve" down. One problem with Classic Orszagism was that it scared the elderly, and near-elderly, who are hardly crazy to see the suggested restrictions on mammogram spending as the opening bid in an ongoing campaign to "scientifically" lower high-tech expenses (by playing up the "anxiety" caused by false positives, for example). Another problem is that if the government can bend the cost curve, the logical place to start is with Medicare--and, indeed, the powerful Fed-like "IMAB" board in Harry Reid's bill is mandated to cut only Medicare. But if we can cut Medicare, why not just cut Medicare--without also adding Obama's admittedly expensive subsidized coverage for the uninsured?

If all you cared about was the deficit, that would be your position: First see if we can cut Medicare, then talk about extending health care to everyone in a few years. The fierce reaction to the mammogram recommendations, though, reinforced an already amply justified skepticism of the governments ability to reduce treatments to constituents who see them as life-saving. Why do we have any expectation that the cost curve will be bent at all, ever?

Mickey actually does a decent job of explaining the better rationale Dams might have for health care reform -- in his view (and the view of those on the left) it's the good and right thing to do as a developed nation to make sure all of your citizens have access to basic health care, even if that means higher taxes or cuts to other entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. The Dems haven't spent a lot of time advancing Kaus' argument (for purposes of this discussion, let's leave aside the argument as to whether all of our citizens already have access to basic health care). I suspect the Dems haven't pressed this argument is because they don't think it would work, particularly in times of economic crisis. But it would be a better argument than the one they have made, some of which Megan McArdle noted. She pointed out that the GOP arguments against the bill are inconsistent, and she's right. But the criticisms may be both inconsistent and valid.

The Dems seem to have a bigger problem -- they can't come up with a good argument in favor of the bill. Maybe that's been their problem all along.

The "Fighting" Irish

Stay classy, Notre Dame fans...

Notre Dame quarterback Jimmy Clausen was punched in the face by an irate fan outside a South Bend restaurant early Sunday morning and has a swollen eye, a person briefed on the incident said on Monday.

That person said Clausen was "sucker-punched" by a fan as he left an establishment after having dinner with his parents.

The fan allegedly said something to Clausen and/or a female acquaintance.

A South Bend police spokesman said that no police reports were filed over the weekend involving Clausen, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Actually, it's unfair to tar ND fans with a broad brush like this (I'm sure most of them aren't drunken louts... during the week). But since the media would happily paint Philly fans with a broad brush, and I hate Notre Dame, I'll happily let paint away. More importantly, I'm sure Clausen will be thrilled to return to school and take shots like this, when he could be off making millions in the NFL.

More unfair and over the top questions -- are we sure Charlie Weis didn't punch Clausen? Does Bill Belicheck have tape of the incident? And aren't all the ND players usually in church on Sunday morning?

The Health Care Follies Continue

Megan McArdle lays out the basic counter-argument to the Democrats' health care plan being worthwhile even with the runaway spending...

I have to say, I'm woefully underimpressed with the argument that I am now hearing to the effect that "Medicare will bankrupt America anyway if we can't cut health care costs, so we might as well do health care reform."

Anyone who has dated a manic-depressive has heard some version of this argument. "I can barely make ends meet now, so I might as well use my tax refund check to buy a boat! After all, if I can't figure out a way to fix my budget, I'm going to go bankrupt anyway."

And anyone who has dated a manic-depressive knows where this ends.

I have no idea why anyone would think that there is no difference between going bankrupt now, and going bankrupt later, which is assuredly untrue. Bankruptcy is a really quite traumatic event with very far-reaching consequences, and you should always try to maximize the distance between it, and you.

I also have no idea why anyone would think that there is no difference between going bankrupt for a huge sum, and going bankrupt for a smaller amount. I mean, there's sometimes no difference for the debtor, but of course, there are a whole bunch of creditors who are also people, and who are not going to be paid back, some of whom may end up in bankruptcy themselves if you default. Since in this case, many of the creditors are the American people, I would think that even the most corporation-hating, bank-despising, littleguyophilic liberal would sort of worry about this.

If we pass this health care reform bill, a bunch of people are going to leave their employer health insurance under this plan for some subsidized plan--millions of them, according to the CBO. If the government goes bankrupt, millions of people will lose that subsidized coverage and be much worse off than if we'd done nothing.

And as any competent bankruptcy attorney could tell you, adding a powerful new creditor also makes it harder to "resolve" the bankruptcy--i.e., to figure out who isn't getting what they're promised. Which is to say, each new entitlement means that you have more interest groups to negotiate with, and also that our prior unsecured creditors--Social Security and Medicare recipients--will have to have their entitlements cut even deeper when the crisis comes. Since those people have structured their lives around the promises of the US government, this is no small thing.

It's worth a read. The biggest counter to this plan is that it will lead to bankruptcy or an incredibly oppressive tax burden, in order to solve an alleged problem of social justice (there are others that are politically worthwhile, and since both sides will play politics, those will be on the table). But this is the one Dems can't counter -- unless they really believe government will suddenly discover a way to cut costs where the private sector would fail, despite decades of evidence and government programs to the contrary. If they were honest, they would merely argue that the higher taxes and social justice are worth it. But the American people wouldn't buy it.

Sully! Sully! Sully!

Sully, you da man....

He's a hero in the sack, too.

The wife of Pilot Chesley Sullenberger let slip that all the hosannas her hubby got for safely landing a US Airways plane in the Hudson River gave their sex life a big boost.

"He doesn't know I'm gonna say this, but I had joked the other day that ... the hero sex really helps a 20-year-old marriage," Lorrie Sullenberger told NBC's Matt Lauer.
"Rock star sex," Sullenberger chimed in.

(hat tip: Instapundit) Perhaps it is too much information, but we're inundated with too much information from a lot of other people who aren't nearly as heroic. So good for you, Sully.

Even SNL Thinks He's Full of It

I was going to do a long post on Obama's trip to China, but SNL beat me to it...



"How exactly is extending health care coverage to thirteen million people going to save you money?"

"I don't know."

I Wonder How Many Barbra Streisand Buys

Jim Geraghty notes that Obama's "Organizing For America" perpetual campaign vehicle is now selling campaign buttons for "Community Organizers" for $5.

Seriously, who on God's green Earth has $5 to spend on a campaign button? No, it's not fair to answer, "Someone who voted for Barack Obama." You'd think in a recession, they'd at least offer a discount, or maybe some special deals. For example, for $3, you get just the button, but for $5, you get the button and one free session of tax avoidance advice from ACORN.

The Health Care Follies Continue

I hoped to talk more about the farce of the health care reform bill, but Harry Reid went and got the Senate debate started on Saturday by the skin of his teeth, in a move that only makes sense if you intend to force-feed a bill down America's throats in time for Christmas. But Byron York notes how much remains to be done for Reid and the Democrats...

"If the bill remains where it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage," Sen. Joseph Lieberman said. "I'm prepared to vote against moving to the next stage of consideration as long as a government-run public option is included," said Sen. Blanche Lincoln. "My vote to move forward on this important debate should in no way be construed by the supporters of this current framework as an indication of how I might vote as this debate comes to an end," said Sen. Mary Landrieu. And Sen. Ben Nelson said he will "oppose the second cloture motion -- needing 60 votes -- to end debate, and oppose the final bill" if major changes are not made.

Some of that is the normal positioning and bargaining that takes place when big bills are considered. But the Democrats' problems in keeping their side together, in the face of united Republican opposition, are an indicator of how public opinion is beginning to dominate the health care debate. Dozens of polls show that Americans are deeply divided over the issue, with a slight plurality opposing the Democratic health care plans currently under consideration in Congress. Clear majorities of Americans don't believe their health care will improve under the plan, and do believe the plan will increase the deficit. Given that, Democrats are trying to pass the biggest piece of legislation in decades, one that will create an enormous and permanent new entitlement, with less than majority support among the public. And they're racing to do it with less than a year to go before mid-term elections that most observers believe will result in fewer Democrats in Congress. No wonder it's hard.

It says a lot that with massive majorities in both houses, the Democrats suddenly face razon-thin vote margins on their signature issue. Part of this is posturing, particularly in the House (where Pelosi and Emanuel were probably able to buy another 5 votes if needed), but a bigger part of this is the shift in public opinion. Actually, there's two shifts here at play.

The first is that the American public's appetite for reform is waning, at least in the current evironment. Between concerns about the deficit, the specifics of the legislation (will illegal aliens be covered? will there a public option? will Medicare be cut?), and the general opposition to big government solutions as people have grown sour on the non-working stimulus and bailouts, health care reform doesn't poll well. The liberals seem to be hoping that if they pass the bill, it will end the debate. I think that's foolish from an electoral point of view, but it is true that it's exceptionally hard to kill an entitlement program once it's established (although our expanding debt will soon test that theory). No matter what, it would be hard to argue that reform is getting more popular -- some surveys indicate it's less popular now than ever before.

But the second shift isn't just on the policy -- it's on Barack Obama. The President's approval ratings are slipping, so much so that people are joking about the narrowing spread between his approval versus that of Sarah Palin's. I don't think Obama's got a problem regarding Palin in 2012 -- I doubt she gets the nomination. But he does have a problem with the American public -- they're not fascinated by the shiny new politician in the window anymore. He's just the President -- they like (or increasingly, used to like) the guy, but expect him to do the job in a certain way. And when he doesn't, or they disagree with him, he hasn't been able to persuade them that he is right.

That last point is important. One of Obama's key advantages in the 2008 election was the perception that his golden tongue could lead people to support his policy initiatives. Yet on health care, a signature issue, he has not been able to rally new supporters around his ideas of reform -- in fact, he's been totally incapable of drawing support from the other side of the aisle. If Bush was President, we'd hear about how he's not being bipartisan. In this case, we hear about how the GOP is being obstructionist.

But in the end, it's on Obama. From day one, he's failed to articulate how his reform will work to (a) cover more people, (b) cut costs, (c) allow all of the people who like their own coverage to keep it, and (d) keep from imposing taxes on anyone save people making $250k or more a year. That's mostly because he can't do it (all of the above can't be done together), but the continuing attempt to sell it on these terms is so dishonest that the corrupt parts of the process are a sideshow. When we learned that Reid had to buy off Mary Landrieu with $100 million in aid for Louisiana simply to get the bill to the floor, it wasn't surprising. Given the rush to enact this powergrab without a real opportunity for the public to consider it, and then the continuing rush to enact it when the public has vociferously objected, it's not surprising that the legislation is unpopular. But the President's failure to convince a majority of why they should support it would have been shocking a year ago.

But now, it's common knowledge that Obama's oratory has been insufficient. That's why Obama is in trouble, whether he passes this piece of crap legislation or not.