| « | November 2003 | » | ||||
 |
||||||
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | ||||||
The Republicans picked up the governors' seats in Kentucky and Mississippi yesterday. Louisiana will probably follow suit next week and elect Bobby Jindal, who would be the nation's first governor of Indian descent.
Marc
Marc
Marc
He says the script was leaked to the media by disgruntled Hollywood union types in retaliation for the movie being shot in Canada (movies shot in Canada are done with non-union labor). Interesting.
Marc
Now, those that know me know that I'm not devoid of fun. I'm not against having a good time, relaxing and not taking things too seriously. However, politics is serious. At the heart of it, politics is the mechanism that distributes our shared, yet finite resources. It is, to borrow a phrase from Laswell, the process that decides who gets what, where, when and how. Politics is serious. And yet, year after year, young voters have failed to rise to the challenge. We have failed to act as an intelligent and informed cog in the great machine of democracy. (Too much?). Many years ago, before cable television and Hot Pockets, when young people wanted to participate in the process they came to it with reverence and respect and acted accordingly. They put on suits and ties, shaved their hippie beards and paid attention. At last night's debate we saw the opposite. Several candidates wore open collars. Clark and Kucinich wore black turtlenecks and blazers. Look, this ain't Dobie Gillis and you're not Maynard Grebs. You're presidential candidates. And for the sake of everyone involved, you should act like it. And young voters need to act more like voters and less like young people.
It gets worse. The failure of young people to show up intellectually last night was overshadowed by the failure of the Democratic contenders to hold a debate of any real consequence. In addition to spending time on the friviolities of youth, the Democrats spent their time attacking Dean. Dean's comment that he wants to be the candidate of "guys in the South with confederate flags on their trucks," had many candidates, desperate for black votes frothing at the mouth. What Dean said is not racist or even biggotted in the least. Dean wants to attract poor, white uneducated Southern voters to once again vote Democratic.
While you would be hard-pressed to find someone who thinks the Democrats can re-capture the whole of the South, there is no question that the Democrats need the South to win. Both Carter and Clinton (the only Democrats to capture the White House in the last twenty-three years) managed Souther votes. Al Gore's failure in 2000 can be traced to his inability to capture several Southern and Southern-like states that have in the past voted Democratic. (This includes states like West Virginia, and Gore's home state of Tennessee and Clinton's home state of Arkansas.)
While none of the candidates wanted to admit it, they all knew Dean was right. Dean wasn't suggesting that Democrats pander to racist interests, but rather that Democrats seek to bring back into the fold poor white Southerners, particularly men, who have traditionally shared the economic priorities of the Democratic Party. If the Democratic candidate, be it Dean or somebody else, fails to capture the "pickup vote" they will have no hope of winning in November.
After that, I don't have the energy to rail against the Skins today. Note Boswell's article about how Snyder may never get it and this piece about the Redskins' coaching staff being among the league's youngest.
Finally, in college news, the Big East picked up some heavy basketball teams to add to their depleated league, including Louisville, Cincinnati and Marquette. Conference-USA, in the meantime, has picked up Rice, SMU and Tulsa from the WAC and Marshall and Central Florida from the MAC. This doesn't appear to be the end of the shifting, so keep your eyes peeled.
Peace & Love,
Tony
Now for what you all came to see. What else could I possibly blog about today? Skins, baby, Skins. The team you love to hate. Everyone witnessed the shame that was the Dallas game. It goes without saying that this team is beyond terrible. They're miserable. They're lock-yourself-in-your-closet-and-cry-yourself-to-sleep bad. And they've been that way since Daniel Snyder took over. In fact, as Kornheisner notes in today's Washington Post, you can trace the Skins downward spiral to the day Norv Turner was fired with a 7-6 record. And yet now, it's somehow worse. Now there is an apparently very talented and undoubtedly tough quarterback who may never live up to his NFL potential because of the Balboa-esque beatings he continues to suffer each and every week. He left Sunday's game twice because of injuries, but like Rocky, he kept getting back up off the mat, eager for more punishment. However, for the Redskisn, unlike the Stallion, there will be NO happy ending. The Redskins will never be competitive while Daniel Snyder calls the shots. As long as this over-indulged billionaire is at the helm the team will continue to be run the way a fourteen year-old kid might run it. Big names, flashy pass plays and no victories. There is no chemistry, no discipline and no accountability on that team. And for me, there is no hope.
Kornheiser has some interesting things to say about this whole sad situation. Note that he mentions Lamar Hunt and Art Rooney as examples of owners who sign the paychecks and shut-up. Snyder should take note. That ownership philosophy has led to nothing except a pretty consistent record of competitivness and class.
Finally, check out this scientific examination of the Orndoff Principle from ESPN.com.
Peace & Love,
Tony
Wilbon savages the Ballcoach in a piece that details all the ways Spurrier is simply being outcoached:
Everybody in the NFL knows what to do against the Fun 'n' Gun. Parcells and his defensive coaches even threw false fronts at Ramsey, hoping he'd audible, then jumped into something else as the snap clock ran down. They're accustomed to seeing that flanker screen to Laveranues Coles. Veteran defenders say there's no "hot read" for Ramsey to go to when he needs to, which is like a pilot having no ejector seat.
I think I've figured out the Skins' problem: they've become inside the Beltway - they play like government employees.
Marc
My personal rule is that if stopping someone from commiting some act doesn't justify shooting them, said act should not be illegal. Why? Because making an act illegal is agreeing to shoot someone who does it.
Marc
Hey, Draper, I've got a big sack of candy for you, so don't eat anything today. Oh, right...
Marc
It comes as no surprise that Congress is working diligently on behalf of the elderly. They vote, and we don't. And while that may change, we are fighting an uphill battle. The elderly already see the benefit of their political participation in the form of Medicare, Social Security and prescription drug benefits. Young people need to be convinced to believe that there are benefits of voting before they actual see any. But, we are a skeptical lot; so getting anybody even near our age to believe in anything that they can't see is no easy task. It may prove a fool's errand.
ANYWAY, I don't think there's a lot of debate that something must be done to government entitlement programs if they are going to exist in any form by the time our age group is able to take advantage of them. Since poverty numbers among seniors have been dwindling (in 1959 35% of the elderly lived in poverty, compared to just 27% of the overall population. In 2001 that number was down to 10%, compared to 12% of the overall population) we need to re-examine if the elderly, as a group, should be considered as being in need of assistance. Make no mistake, poverty-stricken old people do, should and will continue to get government benefits. What we're talking about here are those citizens, who because of their age but in spite of their wealth still receive large government benefits. That practice needs to be curtailed. The government needs to cease discussion on a prescription drug benefit for seniors, and focus instead on one for poor seniors, and poor people in general. Further, Medicare must be means-tested, to prevent those wealthy seniors from getting assistance that they don't really need.
Social Security, the notorious third rail of contemporary American politics, is a program in need of drastic overhaul. Aside from the rather academic discussion of a Social Security "lockbox," serious reforms are imminent. There have been a number of reforms bandied about in the last few years. Slashing benefits, raising payroll taxes, privatizing the whole system, raising the retirement age have all been among them. The system is going to crash once Baby Boomers retire, because boomers, unlike their "greatest generation" parents had fewer children. There will be less people to pay fore more retirees.
I'm not 100% decided on any one mode of reform, although the first steps are clear. With the advances of medicine, the retirement age can easily be moved to 70. (In reality, the retirement age discussion is almost irrelevant. Whether or not the age is raised on Social Security benefits or not, our age group will likely never be able to retire.) It seems to me, however, that the nature of the failures of this system would lead one to privatization as the answer. The government could substantially reduce payroll taxes, allowing the system to continue to distribute gradually decreasing benefits to those that have paid into it. Eventually, the system will, to borrow a phrase from New Gingrich (who was actually referring to Medicare) "wither on the vine." Those workers who are not scheduled to receive any benefits will be able to invest (with the money they save on reduced payroll taxes) so that they can retire. I would support a social "safety net" for those who either don't invest or are careless with their money. The benefit would have to small enough, however, that it would encourage people to invest but large enough to allow people to live.
I think this solution would also help ease what I have heard referred to as the "investment gap." People in this country do not invest for their future, primarily because of entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. By eliminating or at the very least drastically reducing the size and scope of these programs, American workers will be forced to provide for their own future. I think the knowledge that they are responsible for themselves in their old age will also help many Americans live within their means.
Maybe I don't need that extra Hummer. Perhaps we could do without a wall-mounted plasma screen television. Honey, maybe you could play with a golf club made of less space-age material.
By doing this, however, we run the risk of stifling economic growth. If people save their money, rather than buy goods, particularly expensive consumer goods, the economy would suffer. But, and I'm no economist, I believe that the economy would eventually stabilize and adapt to the type of situation I've described.
Well, if that's not enough, here are some links related to Social Security reform:
Socail Security Reform.org: Seems to be run by the Heritage Foundation. Has a section that allows you to see what your benefits will look like based on your age and gender.
sscommonsense.org:A fairly non-partisan website examining the Socail Security reform debate.
ourfuture.org: A liberal website from the viewpoint of young Americans. Details a number of issues and problems, how increased government can help to solve almost all of them.
Peace, Love and Means-Testing,
Tony
Marc
As Congress and our cowardly Commander-in-Chief prepare to dole out some more of our tax dollars to the nation's wealthiest citizens in the form of a presciption drug benefit, take time to read this report by the Cato Institute.
Here are a few disheartening facts (remember these when you file your tax return):
Back to work, slackers! Granny needs a new Town Car!
Marc
Raptors: 7.0
Representin' Canada is good, but it's still technically an alternate jersey, so the purple will rear its ugly head. Plus, they're named after dinosaurs.
Cavaliers: 8.5
Dope logo! Their unis have been a disaster in the post-Mark Price era, but these are pretty sharp. I like the 'wine' better as an accent color than as a main color.
Rockets: 9.5
Outstanding! Very space-age in a Jetsons kind of way. From the side, the stripes form chevrons pointing towards each other.
Magic: 6.0
Generic. They look like Kentucky or Memphis. On the plus side, they aren't offensive - just boring. I am a uniform purist in football and baseball, but in hoops I want a little zazz.
Nuggets: 7.5
Very nice color scheme, but they kept the old font. A total makeover would have been better - or just wear the rainbow throwbacks!
Suns: 9.0
I've always liked the gray stripe down the side, and it looks great with orange. If I were going to wear one of these jerseys, this would be it. Check out the snazzy website of the design firm that did the Suns' new uniforms, as well as most of the other Phoenix teams.
Hockey Preview
This is unfortunate: the new Dallas Stars alternate jersey. It's the stars of the constellation Taurus arranged over a bull's head. Barf.
Chris Creamer reports the NHL is switching to dark jerseys at home so the home teams can show off these abominations to their loyal fans.
Marc
