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 don't think of this song as annoying -- it's actually a personal favorite. But it does get stuck in one's head, which is needed today, just to wash away the song from yesterday. Plus, the mustaches and hair in this video are otherworldly - the drugs people were doing in the 1970's clearly shine through.



You're welcome.

Rotten Eggs and Rotten Legislators

Professor Bainbridge does a terrific job explaining why the Senate hearings on Goldman Sachs struck me as stupid...

Maybe Goldman sold investors some rotten eggs. Maybe not. So what? Goldman argues that it is being "railroaded by Congress for performing a normal market function—pricing risk and providing investment opportunities for grown-up investors," which strikes me as precisely right. It is a central tenet of the federal securities laws that you're allowed to sell rotten eggs, so long as you disclose that they're rotten. So long as Goldman fully disclosed all material facts, the fact that Goldman thought the securities being sold were "shitty," as one scatological email reference by an unwise trader put it, is not a breach of the securities laws.


...the New Deal Congress explicitly rejected the blue sky regulatory model in favor of a disclosure-based system. The SEC thus has no authority to pass on the merits of an offering of securities.


The system that resulted fairly has been called a rotten egg statute. You could sell all the rotten eggs you wanted as long as you fully told people just how rotten they were.


It would behoove the US Senate to learn this history before they conduct their next perp walk.

I saw another pretty good analogy on this point -- Goldman is the equivalent of a Vegas sportsbook offering a number of esoteric bets to gamblers. The folks working at the casino are taking the opposite position on any bet that comes in -- that is, they will win if the bet goes wrong for the gambler and vice versa. The politicians on the Senate panel seem to think that the casino has a blatant conflict of interest that should render the deal invalid.

But that's patently idiotic -- everyone on both sides of the transaction damn well knows the casino's on the other side of the transaction. If the bet is made according to set terms and neither side finds a way to manipulate the price or the odds unfairly (like fixing the outcome), it doesn't matter if the casino thinks the bettor is making a "shitty" deal.  The bettor wants to speculate, and the casino is providing him a means of doing so.  We could argue as to whether it's a good thing to allow such speculation, but we do allow it, and it seems moronic to claim that it's illegal to find a way to make a profit off of it.

The SEC case, for all its potential flaws, is substantially different than the critique levied by Carl Levin and his band of merry legislators.  The SEC case at its core is based around the idea that Goldman in some way lied about how the financial products it was selling were created -- the case is not premised on the idea that it's sinister that Goldman was on the other side of the transaction. 

Congress is merely screaming about Goldman's entirely legitimate role in selling the products themselves, which isn't even a concern for the SEC.  The problem here is that Congress wants to be seen shaking an angry finger at Goldman, because they did something "wrong." Never mind that nothing in the statute prohibits what Goldman did -- it's somehow wrong, period.  Unfortunately, the real wrong is that Congress can waste so much public time -- and money -- and succeed only at looking like idiots.  Then again, perhaps that's Congress' only true role.

The Health Care Follies Continue

I didn't realize the health care bill was this unfriendly to small business...

Most people know about the individual mandate in the new health care bill, but the bill contained another mandate that could be far more costly.


A few wording changes to the tax code’s section 6041 regarding 1099 reporting were slipped into the 2000-page health legislation. The changes will force millions of businesses to issue hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of additional IRS Form 1099s every year. It appears to be a costly, anti-business nightmare.


Under current law, businesses are required to issue 1099s in a limited set of situations, such as when paying outside consultants. The health care bill includes a vast expansion in this information reporting requirement in an attempt to raise revenue for an increasingly rapacious Congress.


...Basically, businesses will have to issue 1099s whenever they do more than $600 of business with another entity in a year. For the $14 trillion U.S. economy, that’s a hell of a lot of 1099s. When a business buys a $1,000 used car, it will have to gather information on the seller and mail 1099s to the seller and the IRS. When a small shop owner pays her rent, she will have to send a 1099 to the landlord and IRS. Recipients of the vast flood of these forms will have to match them with existing accounting records. There will be huge numbers of errors and mismatches, which will probably generate many costly battles with the IRS.

This is friggin' insane. Ed Morrissey at Hot Air puts it well...

And they did it as part of a health-care bill. Instead of directing capital towards growth-stimulating efforts, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats just buried the private sector in an avalanche of compliance costs.

Morrisey calls it "another Pelosi Easter egg." It's an Easter egg filled with manure.

Say It Ain't So, Joe

I live in D.C., and the big story in town today is the heartbreaking loss (or chokejob) by the Capitals against the Canadians in the first round of the NHL playoffs.  After blowing a 3 games to 1 edge in the series, the Caps completed their collapse with a 2-1 loss in Game Seven on home ice last night.  The loss feels even worse when you realize the Caps were the best team in hockey this season, and the Canadians just squeaked into the playoffs on the last weekend of the regular season.

To be fair, the Canadians played terrific team hockey, and there's a legitimate argument to be made for the idea that the Caps are a team that does not have the right components to win several playoff series in a row.  But let's assign blame where it belongs for this loss.  The Sports Bog at the Post tells us that Vice President Joe Biden showed up at the game last night (per the picture at left) -- presumably to root on the Caps.  They should have known they were doomed at that point -- Biden's completely capable of screwing up anyone's karma.

I'm warning you, now, Joe -- I know you're a Phillies fan.  That's okay, and a rare exhibition of good taste on your part.  Just don't attend any games -- we don't need the added bad vibes of your presence, let alone need to worry about you getting on the P.A. and telling everyone that this game is a "big f---in' deal!"  Just stay home -- the view's probably better anyway, and the Secret Service gets a night off.  Everyone wins.

Bottom line - stay away from my teams, or this blog really gets nasty.  But feel free to show up and cheer on your law school alma mater Syracuse when they play Villanova anytime.

Oh, The Press Feels Neglected... Wahhh

Over at Politico, they are discussing the allegedly antagonistic relationship between the White House press corps and the Obama Administration...

Reporters say the White House is thin-skinned, controlling, eager to go over their heads and stingy with even basic information. All White Houses try to control the message. But this White House has pledged to be more open than its predecessors, and reporters feel it doesn’t live up to that pledge in several key areas:


— Day-to-day interaction with Obama is almost nonexistent, and he talks to the press corps far less often than Bill Clinton or even George W. Bush did. Clinton took questions nearly every weekday, on average. Obama barely does it once a week.


— The ferocity of pushback is intense. A routine press query can draw a string of vitriolic e-mails. A negative story can draw a profane high-decibel phone call or worse. Some reporters feel like they’ve been frozen out after crossing the White House.


— Except toward a few reporters, press secretary Robert Gibbs can be distant and difficult to reach — even though his job is to be one of the main conduits from president to press. “It’s an odd White House where it’s easier to get the White House chief of staff on the phone than the White House press secretary,” one top reporter said.


— And at the very moment many reporters feel shut out, one paper — The New York Times — enjoys a favoritism from Obama and his staff that makes competitors fume, with gift-wrapped scoops and loads of presidential face time.

The fact that the press is just figuring out that our President is thin-skinned is actually pretty hilarious -- it's telling that this President seems utterly incapable of making a decent self-deprecating joke, which would be a sign of humility. Most of his humor comes from mocking others -- and since he's become less popular over time, he's beginning to mroe and more resemble a bully.

But the rest of the whining from the press is pathetic. They anointed this guy, and they damn well saw how his campaign team pushed back on just about anything critical, with the ferocity of a Chicago pol. And if they are just determining that Robert Gibbs can be a bit of a prick, I'm worried about their ability to ferret out stories. What's truly funny here is that the press wouldn't do anything with the access when they had it. And even if they get it back, it's doubtful that they will do anything with it, since it has become clear that they will be frozen out if they report even-handedly on the President rather than kiss butt.

The Anchoress has a fabulous analogy about this...

It reminds me a little of that scene in Ferris Beuller’s Day Off, when Ferris opines that Cameron will marry the first girl who has sex with him, but “She won’t respect him,” Ferris says, “’cause you can’t respect somebody who kisses your ass. It just doesn’t work.”

That last line may be a good description of both the press relationship with this Administration, and the Administration itself.

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'm pretty sure the Cyrus family deserves credit for being able to produce annoying songs for more than one generation. This may be the most annoying song I've ever posted here (and since I've never posted anything by the Scorpions, I think it would be hard to top this). I'm exceedingly patriotic, but I'm guessing the PA system in hell plays this thing on a continuous loop.



You're welcome.

We Really Need That Arizona Iced Tea Summit, Or The Nazis Win

Jonah Goldberg makes a really good point regarding the Nazi comparisons floating around about Arizona's new law against illegal immigrants...

In Nazi Germany Jews were not permitted to leave the country (at least not when it really mattered). Jews in fact begged to be deported or expelled. In Denmark Jews were deported — to Germany. So how does America end up the Nazi-like country here? If the Denmark example applies, it would make Mexico the Nazi-like country and America the modern-day Denmark. Except the illegals don't want to be deported and Mexico isn't killing its own repatriated emigrants.


...So other than meaning "really, really bad" what do people like Greenhouse and Cardinal Mahony mean when they invoke the Nazis? Is it just the image of cops asking for papers? I don't like that image either, but if we're reducing Nazism to checking paperwork we're really defining it down — particularly since legal immigrants have been required to carry around their paperwork since 1940, when FDR and the Democrats made it a law.

I think defining Naziism down is a function of liberalism in general -- liberals have been accusing conservatives of this for months, due to people calling Obama's policies fascist or socialist.  While I agree some of that criticism is over-the-top, in many cases it has an objective basis in fact.  Obamacare is objectively more socialist than the health care system as it existed.  Like Goldberg, I'm not sure how the new Arizona law equates to Naziism.  There's plenty to worry about regarding the Arizona law, but pretending that it creates an out-of-control police state basically means that you've given up on addressing the problems of illegal immigration and are interested in political points.  And that's before we get to the gratutitous violation of Godwin's Law, which means you're losing the debate already.

The Goldman Mess

Over at Powerline, John Hinderaker has a good post summarizing yesterday's Senate hearing where our esteemed representatives spent several hours trying to pass blame for the subprime housing crisis to Goldman Sachs while venting anger in hopes that the taxpayers think they're doing something useful.  I can agree most with the conclusion of Hinderaker's post:

I'm not a particular fan of either Goldman Sachs or Congress, but today's hearing confirms that, given a choice, I'd rather have Goldman Sachs regulating Congress than Congress regulating Goldman Sachs. Goldman's employees are much smarter, considerably more honest, and far more likely to have my interests at heart.

The smarter is self-evident from the clips of the hearing -- the Senators seem completely unable to understand what market makers do, what risk management entails, or have any true understanding of securities markets. Some of this is for show -- I don't think the Senators are all this stupid -- but some of it is real. As Megan McArdle notes, the Senators don't seem to understand what Goldman actually does...

Carl Levin is asking the same silly question that I've heard over and over: shouldn't Goldman have told buyers that it was short?


The presumption is that Goldman has some sort of godlike knowledge that it was concealing from its customers. It's not Goldman's responsibility to tell its customers what they should want to buy (or at least, not on the trading/ABS side), or what Goldman wants to buy. It's Goldman's responsibility to make sure that its clients have all the relevant details about the securities. Clients buy stuff from Goldman all the time that some part of Goldman is short; differences of opinion are what make marriages and markets.


...Goldman was making a bet. That bet could have gone wrong (not in this case, but in many similar). Other firms had different opinions of the market. Goldman was under no obligation to disabuse them of their opinions. They're not investment advisers; they're securities issuers.

I'm actually okay that the Senators don't know as much about this as Goldman -- this is Goldman's business. But the Senators' inability to understand the business goes a long way toward feeding misperceptions about the business, and inevitably leads to bad legislation, which will in turn probably lead to the next financial crisis. And that's where we're headed, and in 10-15 years Carl Levin or some other Senator will be huffing and puffing self-righteously against someone else for doing nothing more than making a profit.

And that's before we get to the question of whether the SEC suit against Goldman is motivated by other reasons, or whether it holds water.

Irrelevant Mystery of the Day

My wife and I were discussing one of her cousins' posting something on Facebook regarding an interaction with the Hansons.  Frankly, I had no idea the band was still around -- I'll be sure to pass that along to one of my good friends, who once noted that it was bands like Hanson that destroyed any chance he had at a musical career.  And I had no idea that meeting the Hansons would be considered newsworthy.  Then again, I once bragged about talking with Chris Matthews on a train, so what do I know?

Anyway, the entire exchange triggered a thought.  In the wake of the sad news regarding Bret Michaels, I immediately made a link between Poison and Hanson, which is admittedly difficult to do.  I started wondering which song using the word "bop" in the title is ultimately more annoying: Poison's "Unskinny Bop" or Hanson's "MMMBop."  My wife correctly pointed out another contender for the honor: Cindy Lauper's "She Bop".

This is a question that I'm not sure I can answer.  We could spend hours debating this, and I'm not even sure I could eliminate any of the contenders.  Anyway, I figured Al Gore's Interweb might provide an authoritative opinion on this, so I thought I'd post the question.  I'm hoping one of my three readers will weigh in.

There is one thing of which I am certain -- all three songs are far better than anything ever produced by the Scorpions.

One Year On, The GOP Got The Better Deal

Almost one year after switching parties, Arlen Specter wonders if he might have helped the country more if he had stayed a Republican (hat tip: Jim Geraghty).  I have a few thoughts:

1.  Speaking only for myself, but likely reflecting the opinion of many Republicans and former/current Specter constituents, I can only say that we don't want you back, Senator.

2.  The article appears in the Morning Call, the newspaper I grew up reading in Lower Macungie, PA.  Best thing about the paper -- the Sunday paper had, on the front page, a list of all of the college football scores from the day before.  This was in the days before Al Gore finished inventing the Interweb and before we had cable TV.  Ah, memories.  Now I'm convinced that my children will one day wonder why people ever read print editions of newspapers.

3.  The article has a picture of Specter from 1995.  Maybe it's just me, but you'd think they would ahve something more current.  If you ran a picture of me from 1995... well, let's not go there.  Let's just say I've changed a bit in 15 years.

4.  The article notes that Specter has voted with Democrats 99% of the time since switching, after voting with the GOP only 58% of the time during his long tenure as a Republican.  I know he's trying to win a primary, but the lockstep voting for the Obama agenda seems to prove what most critics of Specter have believed all along -- namely, that he's a narcissist only concerned with promoting himself, and that he will sell out anything just to retain power.  I'm not saying this makes him unique among politicians, just that any belief that he's some fair-minded moderate is total BS.

5.  It's actually pretty funny, but Obama was riding pretty high at this time last year when Specter switched parties.  Since then, his approval ratings have dropped significantly, the Dems' chances for retaining control of the House have cratered, the Democrats have lost gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey, and the Democrats lost Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.  At this point, the Democrats should be begging Specter to return to the GOP.

Obama Part II: The President Strikes Back

Ah, a new strategy from the President's PR team -- he's getting more personal in fighting back...

Once chastised for not being tough enough, President Barack Obama has lately been getting personal with his political adversaries — singling them out for scorn in speeches, interviews, asides and even in his weekly radio address.


Rather than just going after big groups of bad guys — insurance companies, lobbyists, the media — Obama has adopted a strategy that gives a face to the enemy.


By setting himself up against specific opponents, he provides a point of contrast that’s useful in invigorating a base hungry for bare knuckles and bravado — and forces those in the middle to choose between him and his villain du jour.


“He lost some of his spunk and fight. He lost what he had in the campaign. When you campaign, you campaign against people,” said Paul Stob, a Vanderbilt professor who co-operates the website www.presidentialrhetoric.com. “I think there have been very conscious decisions to get back to that.”


With his approval numbers flat-lining near the 50 percent mark in recent months — and Democrats trailing Republicans by double digits among independents in recent surveys — the president and his congressional allies could use a boost among both core Democratic constituencies and folks who feel no particular allegiance to either party.

I'm not sure why they think this strategy will work. Hell, I'm not even sure it's a real shift in strategy -- I think they've tried this before and it didn't work. And as the article notes, the President risks lowering himself to the same level as those whom he criticizes -- and if the President is seen as being on the same level as Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, then each of those entertaners comes out as the winner, because they're now on par with the leader of the Free World.  And I'm not sure why independants would view the President more favorably if his only response in a policy argument is to bash the other side.  That works for political partisans, but not for those who hate partisanship.

More importantly, the President campaigned on the idea that he was going to bring people together and unite them. The President may be believe people like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are just obstructionists, but each one represents a point of view that has substantial political support. If you dismiss their point of view by attacking them personally, then you're dismissing the points of view of their supporters -- and writing them off entirely.

The President would be far better off selling the good points of his own legislative priorities and substantively breaking down the arguments offered by the other side. Then again, as we saw with health care, maybe that strategy doesn't work when your own legislation is lousy and the other side's arguments are true.

Maybe The President Can Hold An Arizona Ice Tea Summit

Richard Cohen has a measured and somewhat off-beat column on the new Arizona immigration law.  It's balanced for a liberal like Cohen, who gives a little too much leeway to the idiotic claims that Arizona is turning into a Nazi state, but I think he reflects an understanding of the situation that too many people who don't live in Arizona seem to lack...

At the moment, the law amounts to a full-employment program for legal scholars. It is so constitutionally dubious that it may not make it to its own birth, some 90 days hence. Among other things, it encourages racial profiling, absconds with federal prerogatives regarding immigration, and will prove both impractical and onerous to enforce. (What if most Hispanics refuse to carry documents? Will they all be detained -- legal and illegal alike?)


President Obama immediately denounced the law, and Democrats have clamored to curry favor with the Hispanic vote by moving up immigration reform on the congressional agenda. Indeed, the law is so hard to defend that Sen. John McCain, facing a hard-right primary challenge from a supporter of the measure, spoke a few words of praise but nevertheless could not bring himself to cheer the new police powers. On local TV here, he mumbled words of furrowed ambivalence. There was a better way of dealing with the problem, he said.


Indeed there is. But the Obama administration had better pay attention to the conditions that produced this law. In a way, another Tea Party movement has emerged -- a scream of pain and anger from a constituency that has seen immigration laws turn meaningless and the impotence of the government flaunted on a daily basis. These are people who didn't have a particularly high regard for Washington in the first place. This is the Anglos' last stand.

There's a little too much of the idea that bigotry is fueling the new law here for me. Some of the supporters are bigots -- but as Cohen notes, somewhere around 70% of Arizona voters back the new measure. I doubt anywhere close to 70% of the citizens of Arizona qualify as bigots. I think what's driving this is fear, but it's not fear inspired by bigotry. It's fear inspired by rampant crime and a federal government that seems utterly unwilling to do anything to solve the problem.

One of the most unintentionally funny moments of what is a tragic situation occurred the other day when MSNBC ran a headline on-screen that said the new law "Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant."  There is a legitimate issue on how we should deal with the problem of illegal immigration, but it's hard to deny that it is a criminal act to cross the border without having obtained some form of authorization.  The real issue is how we deal with the criminal act, not whether it is a criminal act.  I don't think Mexican government officials calling Arizonans a bunch of xenophobic racists is going to persuade them to change the law, either.

And at the end of the day, it's the federal government's unwillingness to deal with the problem that's leading to this flashpoint.  Then again, the federal government seems to specialize in not dealing with big problems (entitlements, debt, energy), so perhaps immigration is only the latest symptom of an inefficient system run by a corrupt elite.

No Media Bias To See Here, Please Move Along

Jim Geraghty draws a pretty good picture of what conservatives have come to expect regarding news coverage from the mainstream media.  As he notes, Northrup Grumman has picked northern Virginia as the new home for its corporate headquarters, which is a nice feather in the cap of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell.  The Washington Post runs the story on page A14, although it does run as the top story in the business section.  But the Post somehow sees fit to make mention of the Confederate History Month imbroglio in the story, as if it is somehow related to Northrup's relocation to Virginia.

The only comforting part about this is that it's not like anyone will read the dead tree version of the Post anyway.

Gizmodo Gets Raided

This is more than a little ridiculous -- the California police have raided the home of a Gizmodo journalist in connection with the leaked/stolen/left behind iPhone controversy.  Forget about the legal issues involved here (and they appear to be pretty contentious) and let's consider something else.   Is this really a smart investment of public resources in a state that's going bankrupt?  My guess is that the San Mateo District Attorney may not be eagar to answer that question.  Instapundit has more, including a pretty apropos gang warfare analogy.

Album Cover Nostalgia

A new recurring series inspired by the Lord of Truth. We all remember certain album covers fondly -- here's one more.

This is just a great cover for an album that was the best-selling album of the year in the United States in 1982. That's pretty damn good for a debut album. Of course, they never followed it up with anything nearly as good, even though there are now two versions of the band now running around claiming to be the real thing. But put that subsequent history aside and just take a look at the album cover -- that's an awesome piece of art all by itself.

The Simpsons Did It

God bless my favorite television show of all time for coming through with  an appropriate illustration to support another of my favorite TV shows of all time (hat tip: Andrew Sullivan).

Next Thing They'll Tell Us Is That The Healthcare Bill Won't Cut Costs

The economy may be turning around, but economists seem to think the stimulus didn't have much of anything to do with it.

Good thing we don't need that stimulus money for anything else.

SNL Goes After Public Employee Unions -- Wait, What?

This isn't the Tea Parties (and if it had been, there would be cries of racism). You know things are bad when SNL is mocking public employees.



It's funny because it might be true... and also sad, because I'm a taxpayer.

A Comprehensive Eagles Draft Recap, Just Because I Wanted To Do One

Other people who have spent far more time than me on the topic evaluate the Iggles' draft as pretty good.  For my fellow diehards, I'll point to the analyses at Iggles Blog and Eagles Blitz (here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here) for stuff you won't get elsewhere regarding the individual draftees (to be fair, the guy at Eagles Blitz does blog on the team site, but his in-depth analysis blows away everything else on the individual players we drafted). 

With that out of the way, here are my thoughts, just because a couple people asked for them, and I was up late with the little one anyway (she is very upset with the failure to pick a corner, but likes the pickup of Nate Allen, thinks the fourth round QB and small college tight ends are going to be very good, and really loves the third round pick, since she's equally as capable as Daddy at prononoucing the guy's name).  Without further ado...

1.  Howie Roseman, the Eagles new GM, is a year younger than me.  Sometimes, I really hate my decisions on career choices.

2.  Jokes aside, I like the Eagles' first pick.  Brandon Graham fits in with the Birds' defensive philosophy (more on that in a moment) and with what I consider to be the hallmark of how this team operates.  I think the Eagles value certain positions as the ones where you spend your first round picks.  Defensive line is one of those positions, and this goes back to the idea Reid has expressed in the past of "throwing fastballs" at opponent's offenses in the pass rush. 

The pass rush last season basically consisted of Trent Cole and inconsistent appearances by Juqua Parker or (if lucky) Darren Howard and Jason Babin, augmented by the traditional blitzing package of JJ that had been tweaked by Sean McDermott.  The blitz will get you killed if you can't cover well enough, which is what started to happen as the season wore on.  The front four couldn't get to the QB fast enough, so the Eagles set to address the problem by loading up.  Two of their top three picks are d-ends, and they added a fifth round defensive end in Ricky Sapp whom many people viewed as third round value.  Add to that the off-season trade for Daryll Tapp, and the Birds are absolutely loaded at d-line.  The rotation at the end spot has seven guys competing for jobs: Cole (a Pro Bowler), Tapp, Parker (7 sacks last year), Graham, Victor Abiamiri, third rounder Teo'Neshaim, and fifth rounder Sapp.   I think Abiamiri may be moving inside on passing downs if he wants to keep a roster spot -- and he still may not make the roster, since there's plenty of competition behind Broderick Bunkley and Mike Patterson.  The team should not be moving late in camp to get an additional rusher off the waiver wire (as they did with Babin last year).  Think about this -- the Birds' d-line could have three first rounders starting next year (Patterson, Bunkley, Graham) next to the team's best defensive player (Cole, who may be the best player on the team, period).  Not bad.

The key here is obviously Graham.  If he's what the Eagles think he is, then you've got a high-motor pass rusher on the opposite side of Trent Cole to make life miserable for opposing o-lines, and that's before you throw in all the fresh legs the Birds can employ from the long list of ends they now have on the roster.  If Graham is good, then the Birds converted two third rounders (one of which was obtained basically by trading down repeatedly last year and still getting the player they wanted in the fifth round in Cornelius Ingram) to get a bookend pass rusher for Trent Cole.  It's hard to characterize that as a bad decision.  I just don't know from watching Graham whether he will be that guy, but the Birds have good company in evaluating him as a good prospect.

3.  While I like Graham, I absolutely love the pick of Nate Allen in the second round.  Put it this way -- he's a ballhawk at safety who can step in and cover slot receivers and big tight ends without missing a beat, and if the Birds weren't going to get Eric Berry, then Allen is as good as it gets.  I know they passed on Earl Thomas to grab Graham, but I think Allen will be really good, and the difference will be inconsequential.  The fact that one of Allen's coaches is former Eagle safety J.R. Reed makes me feel even better -- Reed's off-field injury after the 2004 season is one of the underrated losses this team has had in recent years.  But if he's confident that Allen can pick up the Birds' defensive playbook, we have a playmaker at free safety.  He won't be like the last playmaker at that position, but even being two-thirds the player Dawk was would be cause for celebration.  Getting him means Macho Harris might move back to corner, or least compete with Joselio Hansen for the nickel corner slot, which I think he can play.

4.  I have to give Roseman credit for trading down and converting the second second rounder into about five picks.  Whether they got value for those picks will be seen in time, but getting quantity isn't a bad thing.

5.  I'm stunned the Birds actually selected 13 players, but I think the team's hit rate on later draft picks is decent enough that increasing the number means we might get a surprise player.  Moise Fokou, last year's seventh-round LB, got on the field last season.  The sixth round WR we traded mid-season for LB help, Brandon Gibson, snagged 34 balls for the Rams. Perhaps one of this year's seventh rounders (from what I read, I like both the LB and the OSU safety) will also get on the field and impress. 

6.  The concerns are obvious.  Let's start with the real concern, which is at cornerback, where the Birds drafted only one player, a fourth rounder who isn't setting anyone's heart afire.  Paul Domowitch nails the issue in the Daily News.

I'm stuck wondering how much of this is by design, and how much of it came about because of how the draft shook out.  I think the Birds probably liked Kyle Wilson and Devin McCourty, who went in the late 20's in round one.  The run on CBs in the late first round meant the Birds, who had traded up to get Graham, had to make a decision on how to get back in the round if they wanted one of the stud corners.  My guess is that it would have cost them both second rounders to do it.  Instead, they took Allen with the Donovan pick, and traded the second second rounder to accumulate somewhere around five picks later in the draft.

I think that was a prudent decision.  As noted, I'm fine with Allen, so this becomes a question of Allen plus any one of the other guys drafted with the mass of picks in the fourth and fifth round being better than Wilson or McCourty.  But the real problem here is that the cupboard at corner is pretty thin.  Asante Samuel is fine on one side, assuming he really is spending the off-season bulking up.  Joselio Hansen is a good nickel corner coming off an inconsistent season.  Harris or free agent safety signee Marlin Jackson may be the solution as well.  But the Birds need someone to step up and play well at the other corner, or the pass rush may not matter.  Then again, this may play into two of my theories that I discuss below (see #8 and #12).

7.  The other concern is o-line.  The Birds usually draft o-linemen like candy, but they passed completely this year. 

I think some of the concerns here were a bit overblown, and based too much on the line's terrible play in the final two games.  I'm not enamored of the backup tackle situation if King Dunlap is still the guy, but the Birds are going to be hosed no matter what if Jason Peters goes down long-term.  The interior line positions were viewed as weak in this draft, and the Birds have had great success plugging in unknown and undrafted guys at center (Bubba Miller, Hank Fraley, Jamaal Jackson) throughout the Reid tenure.  Cole actually was fine blocking at center last year in the last two games (the snaps were a different story).  The real issue for the Eagles is that they lost every o-line starter for at least a couple games last year.  No matter how much depth you have, that would test it.

The Eagles basically were saying that they have confidence that they can find two decent lineman between Cole, Stacey Andrews, Dallas Reynolds, Mike McGynn, and A. Q. Shipley until Jackson gets back.  Or at least, that they have more confidence that they can do that than to grab a low round rookie just to provide depth. 

I'm okay with that, although I wonder what happens if they have another rash of injuries, particularly at tackle.  But in the end, if you're going to trust Andy Reid on anything, his instincts on o-linemen seem pretty good, and Juan Castillo has been a terrific line coach.  So I'm not sure this is as big a problem as everyone thinks.

8.  Back to defensive philosophy for a moment.  The late Jim Johnson (God rest his soul) was Sean Mcdermott's mentor, but it's clear McDermott comes at things a little differently.  I think the guys at Iggles Blog are on to something when they note that McDermott may want to do more coverage scheming then exotic blitzing.  The team traded for Ernie Sims and Alex Hall at linebacker, and the fourth round linebacker they drafted from Oklahoma appears similar to them, which seems to back the idea that Birds are looking for speed, speed, more speed to cover tight ends and running backs.  If you can do that and rush the passer, it makes a difference in a division where Dallas has multiple pass catchers who aren't receivers.  Jason Witten kills the Birds every year, but youth and speed at safety and linebacker are good attempts to stop the bleeding.

With that being said, I really hope Stewart Bradley is back full-strength, because I'm not sure there's a decent option at MLB if he's not.

9.  Did I mention that the three day draft worked well?  I didn't watch much of Saturday anymore because of family obligations, but the Thursday night and Friday night sessions allowed me to flip in, flip out, then watch late night recaps on Sportscenter.

10.  My best guess for a sleeper?  I really like Riley Cooper, the fifth round wide receiver.  His resume looks similar to Jason Avant.  Great value pick who can play special teams, probably compete for the #4 receiver job right now (a position that doesn't actually get a lot of play for this team), and maybe be a red zone threat due to his height (perhaps we'll finally see the fade pass that Donovan seemingly never threw to Hank Baskett).  In fact, both fifth rounders and the sixth round running back, Charlie Scott, were good value picks.  The small college tight end is intriguing, because the Birds are basically loading up on tight ends who can catch and are works in progress blocking.  Speaking of which, count me among those hoping Ingram has recovered fully and gives us another option at tight end.  If he's as good as everyone thought before the second ACL tear last summer, the Birds offense may actually be able to play pitch and catch the way Reid likes.  I just hope Kolb's arm doesn't wear out.  Think about the personnel packages the team has available with Vick, McCoy, Bell, Weaver, Celek, Jackson, Maclin, Avant, and Ingram.  That's before we factor in contributions from Scott, Cooper, Baskett, or Harbor.  Options, baby, options. 

11.  I have no idea how to evaluate Teo'Neshaim, the third rounder whom some described as a reach.  I'm better off trying to pronounce his name.  But I like the fact that many people liked him as a sleeper pick.  The real question is whether the Birds passed on a corner they liked to draft this kid -- they say no, and the level of difference between the corners who went then and the one the Birds got at #105 may be inconsequential.  At the end of the day, the Birds think they got a player.  Football Outsiders' new SackSEER analysis says they may be right on the sleeper call.

12.  My last thought is somewhat of a downer.  I don't think the Birds are loading up for a Super Bowl run in 2010.  That's the first time I've said that in years.  A first-year starter at QB, even with all the skill position toys they have, is going to be tested, and that's before we consider the o-line question marks.  The defense will be better but young, and they may still need one or two pieces in the secondary.  I'd love to be wrong, but I think the team will come into the 2011 draft looking for one or two corners, a backup LB, a backup tackle, and perhaps a d-tackle for the rotation.  However, that wish list is not bad.  And if you're making a run in 2011 rather than 2010, it makes sense to accumulate picks, draft a bunch of prospects, and perhaps wait to get your top cornerback next year.  At least, I think it does.  It will depend on how the draft shakes out next year, but the Birds already have an extra third and fifth rounder next year (while missing a sixth).  That ammunition may help procure the playmaking corner that could push this defense to elite status.  The biggest counter to this theory is that the Birds should probably deal Mike Vick now for something (a fifth rounder that converts to a conditional 3?) for next year's draft, then sign Garcia as the backup.  If you're not going for broke this year, why not accumulate one more trading asset for next year?

Regardless, I think the Birds are still better right now than the Giants and Redskins, although the Giants are probably a toss-up.  Unlike many people, I don't fear Dallas long-term because (a) Wade Phillips is still going to screw things up eventually, (b) I think Jason Witten will wear down soon, (c) their o-line has issues, and (d) their defensive secondary can be had.  The Saints and Vikings are the best teams in the NFC, but I think the Birds are already on the same tier with Dallas, Arizona, the Giants, and Green Bay to break through and contend, and that's with a very young team.  Arizona is unsettled at QB, the Giants have defensive issues galore, and I flat-out like the Birds defense better than Green Bay's. 

Here's the good news -- I think the Birds are loading up for 2011 and 2012.  This team will contend for a playoff spot, but they will miss some of the veteran presence they once had.  But I think a strong nucleus has been built over the last five drafts for a terrific future, and they can top it off next year.  All of this presumes one important thing -- that Kevin Kolb can play.  I think he probably struggles a little next year, then breaks out in 2011... just in time for a run at finally lifting the Lombardi Trophy.

One more thing... E-A-G-L-E-S, Eagles!

Maybe The Steroids In His Back Pocket Slow Him Down

One more reason to dislike Alex Rodriguez -- he has the slowest home run trot on the Yankees.  Of course, it's probably hard to run fast when you're dragging around that huge ego.  Plus, he probably stops at third base to see if he can catch his reflection in a mirror or something.

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.

One of my favorite songs, but it does tend to get stuck in your head. The lyrics are awesome, however, and I find it borderline offensive that John Mayer did a cover of this song (mostly because I have to wonder if he's making the song about Ms. Sexual Napalm). The song triggers nostalgia for the simple fact that each time I saw the video when I was a teenager, I actually wanted to live in California. Although that was mostly due to the fact that the blonde girl in the video was really hot.



You're welcome.

VAT This

Matt Welch reacts to the Obama Administration's decision to make the campaign for a Value-Added Tax (VAT) more obvious...

Compared to the H&R Block subsidy program that is the US tax code, the VAT is a straightforward way for governments to skim 20% or so off the top of every transaction. By penalizing consumption and not earnings, it encourages savings and resists gaming by well-connected special interests. In an ideal world, you could enact a VAT while slashing America’s corporate income tax rate, which is the globe’s second-highest.


But as the last 18 months of federal misgovernance has aptly demonstrated, we do not live in anything like an ideal world.


The only reason VAT is even on the table right now is that bureaucrats like VAT enthusiast Nancy Pelosi have an appetite for spending that far outpaces Americans’ willingness to cough up their hard-earned dough. Every statehouse and city council across the land is literally out of money, and turning to the only people who can print the stuff: Washington.


The federal government spent $3.5 trillion last year while taking in just $2.1 trillion, producing a deficit-to-Gross Domestic Product ratio of 10%, a level not seen since World War II. By contrast, the European Union requires member countries to keep deficits at 3% of GDP. If America was in Europe, we’d be Greece.


What’s worse for us is that we’ve pretty much given up trying to address the root problem, which is the decade long spending binge initiated by George W. Bush and then tripled down on by Barack Obama. The VAT isn’t a way to streamline a complicated tax code; it’s a new spigot to flood money into the pockets of teachers who can’t be fired, and securities regulators who can’t get enough porn.

If only the VAT proceeds would go toward more porn, we might get real economic stimulus. Seriously, I'm not sure who has the actual ability to pass a massive new tax following the health care debacle, although that debacle is pretty much the reason we'll need new federal revenues. The problem, which I'm not sure is fully appreciated in Washington, is that any such tax may lead to real consideration for something many Americans find far more attractive than new spending -- a new and reformed government, with Constitutional changes that would kill the income tax entirely.

I May Need To Reevaluate That Desire To Move To New Jersey

I hope the number isn't right, and that Chris Christie's approval rating is higher than 33 in New Jersey.  There are some polling methodlogy questions here as well. 

But you know what? He won't face the voters for three more years.  If they vote him out because he won't bend over to public employee unions and keep raising taxes at that time, more people will leave New Jersey, until the state's begging for a federal bailout... which won't come because everyone else will be laughing at them.

In the meantime, I suspect Christie's doesn't care, which means he'll keep doing what he has been doing.  Good for him, and better for New Jersey.

At The Very Least, We Have An Excuse To Mention The Baha Men

I'm not even sure how to write anyting about his, save to note the headline "Gay dog refused entry to Adelaide restuarant."

Actually, three quick thoughts:

1.  Based on the headline, it''s unclear if the dog was actually not allowed to enter, or if it was serving as a bouncer and preventing others from getting in.  Hey, each seems equally plausible.

2.  "Who Let The Dogs Out?" has a whole new meaning.

3.  South Park predicted the whole gay dog thing over a decade ago.  Man, those guys are brilliant.

The Healthcare Follies Continue

Oh, goody. Now that the bill has passed, we get to find out that it won't cut costs...

Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.


But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.


It's a worrisome assessment for Democrats.


In particular, concerns about Medicare could become a major political liability in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.


The report from Medicare's Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law's potential to achieve savings.

The White House will also complain later this year when vote counts reveal that more voters rejected their massive health care overhaul than liked it. It appears they're not big fans of reality. Jim Geraghty has a good list of the Democrats who are probably hating this report the most right now.

Kudos, John Stewart

There's not much we could say about the South Park/Comedy Central censorship imbroglio.  A douchebag who lives in Fairfax, Virginia, blogging an explicit threat against Parker and Stone, gets Comedy Central to change its programming out of fear.  Meanwhile, the American media, which looks for violence everytime someone farts at a Tea Party protest, largely fails to cover the controversy for days.

But Jon Stewart, who actually works for Comedy Central, has the balls to cover the story -- and does it fairly.  Even though he may be a little softer on the Comedy Central execs for whom he works, I'm not going to blast them too harshly.  Parker and Stone can make a stand on their art and take risks, and the execs may even be willing to risk their own skins.  But when other employees and company property may be put at risk, it's not hard to understand why a corporate executive may not be willing to take a stand on principle.  But it says even more when a comedy show has more balls in "speaking truth to power" than alleged real journalists.

Stewart focuses his rage at the end on the appropriate actors -- the douchebags issuing the threat.  As he notes, fuck them.  Hot Air has the story on the "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" coming up next month, which may blow the roof off the controversy.   In the meantime, here's Stewart, in all his brilliance.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
South Park Death Threats
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Whether It's Legal Or Not, It's True

I have no idea whether it's legal or not to stamp "TAX CHEAT!" over Tim Geithner's signature on currency.  My guess is that it's probably a close question, as noted here by Beldar (hat tip: Instapundit).  Unlike, say, whether Tim Geithner actually is a tax cheat, which seems pretty well-established by common sense.

Does This Mean We Don't Have To Talk To Richard Simmons?

Steven Hawking says we shouldn't talk to aliens.   The man is after my own heart -- there are days when I don't want to speak to my neighbors.  Of course, I'm waiting for Hawking to get ripped for his narrow-minded fear of others.