In praise of H.R. 390

Or, in other words, the College Football Playoff Act of 2009.

Now, there's a giant flaw in this bill: as soon as it passes, the NCAA will simply rename/reconfigure the Football Bowl Subdivision, and that'll be that. Let's just assume though, that doesn't happen. I love this bill. This bill is the greatest thing to come out of Washington this year. Of course it's flagrantly unconstitutional. But give me a break, suddenly Americans should care that a bill before Congress is unconstitutional? We have 2 separate 2,000 page bills circulating full of faschistic health care regulations and suddenly we can't pass a bill to regulate college football? C'mon now! This is the year 2009, the Constitution is sooo last millennium, and it's evolving and all that. Or, to put it another way, if the government can tell someone what insurance company they can buy their health insurance from, if the government can tell you how much electricity you're allowed to use in the name of 'saving the environment,' the government can darn sure regulate college football. That's why I love this bill. Because it's absurd...but only just the least bit more absurd than everything else Congress is doing. If they spend an hour, or a day, or even many days debating it, so much the better. At least they won't be spending that time debating something else that will take away more of your freedom, something they are doing far, far, far, far, far too much of these days.

Some are more equal

I knew there was something wrong about the way the Big 12 game ended on Saturday, I just couldn't put my finger on it. I was right of course, and only 40 years of televised football proves it. Yes, it would've been nice if Nebraska hadn't kicked it out of bounds, and yes, it would've been nice if that Nebraska lineman hadn't (allegedly) horse-collared. But you know what? it also would've been nice if the referees hadn't given Texas their first field goal by calling what 80 people have told me was the single worst pass interference penalty they have ever seen. So bygones. That game was over with the incomplete pass. If you watched any of the other games on Saturday, and/or any of the 14 NFL games on Sunday, you saw the same thing: when a pass is incomplete, or when a player steps out of bounds, the rest of the second on the play clock is rolled off, and the clock stops for the next full second of time. If a player steps out with 11 and a half seconds left, when he steps out the clock reads 12, the clock rolls off for half a second, and 11 full seconds are left in the game. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's the rules. And guess which team the Big 12 officials changed the rules for? wouldn't you know it, it was the team which would go to the fraudulent 'national championship game' if they won. What a shock. And speaking of that, can someone tell me what was so impressive about the schedule Texas played this year? So much more impressive than Cincinnati, and TCU, and Boise State? So impressive that it was a certainty that they would go to the BCS game if they won? I didn't think so. The Bowl Championship Series: where the biggest reason for a team playing for 'the national championship' is how good people thought they would be in August. Gotta love it.

Why he was wrong

I can't believe I'm writing about this. I can't believe the entire sports world--or far too much of it at any rate--is braindead on this. You can say that you like the call. You can say you turned to the person you were watching the game with at the time and said, "yeah, Belichick is totally going for it here." You can say a bunch of things about 4-2. But you can't say it was the right call, because it isn't, and it wasn't.

First of all, I need to inform you that if you use the names Belichick, Brady, or Manning at any point in this discussion, you have already half-lost the argument. That officially constitutes the "yeah, but" defense. And I'll get back to those arguments later. Now that that is out of the way, we can deal with this question on a level befitting smart fans and smart people. Nearly everyone I've heard discuss this today has done so in a vacuum, talking about the play itself, out of context. But context is everything here. I'm going to expllain that The decision was wrong, because other decisions made during that drive were wrong. With thanks to CBSSports.com, here is the drive summary.

New England Patriots at 02:23 
1-10-NE20 
(2:23) (Shotgun) K.Faulk up the middle to NE 20 for no gain (R.Brock).  
2-10-NE20 
(2:18) (Shotgun) T.Brady pass short right to W.Welker to NE 28 for 8 yards (J.Lacey, C.Session).  
3-2-NE28 
(2:11) (Shotgun) T.Brady pass incomplete short right to W.Welker (J.Powers).  
4-2-NE28 
(2:08) (Shotgun) T.Brady pass short right to K.Faulk to NE 29 for 1 yard (M.Bullitt).   

I don't have a problem with the first 2 plays, so let's skip to 2:11 left and 3-2. There is a saying in football that, when you throw the ball 3 things can happen and 2 of them are bad. Those 3 things are of course a reception, an interception and an incompletion. Given the fact that the 2 minute warning stops the clock already, a running play is called for here. That being said, I don't have a problem with the pass to Welker. This however is where things went very wrong. The rest of this drive should have been set up during the Colts time-out. The Patriots should have lined up immediately after the incompletion and ran the 4th down, if that was the plan. The Patriots calling their final time-out after the incompletion is what makes the decision to go for the 4-2 wrong. The biggest problem with calling the time-out is that it allowed the Colts to reset their defense. Because the play was 4-2 and not 4-1, they had a good idea what was coming, as did everyone watching the game. You don't call a time-out to set up a quarterback sneak. The implications of that point--why the Patriots ran the obvious play--are interesting, but that's a discussion for another time. The other problem with the time-out, as mentioned, is that it was the Patriots' 3rd. That meant there was no stopping the clock during a Colts possession if the play failed, and it meant, fatally, that the Patriots could not challenge the spot after a short yardage play.

Remember I said I was going to get back to the "yeah, but it's Tom Brady!" argument? Well okay. If you want to go there, if you say that it matters who the quarterback is, who the other quarterback is, all that stuff, then the play was still wrong, because you're talking about the state of the game at that moment. And as I just pointed out, everything about that moment in the game says that the Patriots should have punted. The other 28 yard line, Stopping the game, no more challenges, the extra yard, all of those things are what made going for it on 4th down, in that situation, the wrong play. End of speech.

They think you're stupid

Woke up this morning to hear some Ontario government flack on the John Moore show telling me that the HST is actually, get this, going to save me money. Yes! Believe it or not, I'll be getting money back. Whenever the government tells you how you'll be saving money when they bring in a new tax, reach for the sky...because they're reaching for your wallet.

It's always important to remember that one of the reasons for the government to levy a tax on something is to discourage or exploit a behaviour certain politicians don't like or see as an easy target. That's the insidious motivation behind certain taxes. But what we're talking about today is a sales tax. The government doesn't want to discourage people from buying (most) things, so what's at work here is the primary reason for taxation; to raise revenue for the government. The Liberals have so badly managed the economy of the province of Ontario that they're now racking up huge deficits. They have ruled out cutting or auditing any government services, so all they have left is to increase taxes. The HST will not be good for the people of Ontario, simply because the express purpose of it is to take more of their money. To pretend otherwise is simply dishonest, something which we all know has already become a hallmark of this government. Don't get fooled again by this bunch. This tax will cost you money, because it has to.

Short rest

I have to say, I totally don't get Joe Girardi's thinking as far as it applies to starting CC Sabathia this afternoon in LA. Why are you pitching your ace on shorter rest than he has worked during the entire season, in a series where you have a game in hand. Why not pitch him on his normal cycle in game 5, where at worst he will be trying to win your third game in the series. Is he trying to make sure the Yankees don't have to play another game in this series in Yankee stadium, where the Angels really didn't play very well? I just don't get it.

Our wonderful future

...is not here yet.

This is a story from last Wednesday's Toronto Star. It is the story of First Light, a gigantic solar farm in Napanee Ontario. The installation spans 36 hectares and includes 126,040 solar panels. Here is the problem: this enormous solar farm generates...9 megawatts. The reason this is a problem is because First Light is big. It is really big. How big? 36 hectares big. For my Toronto readers, you could build 9 Rogers Centres inside it. And this 36 hectares can generate enough power for 1000 homes. Now 1000 homes is nice, it's surely not nothing. But compared to the province of Ontario, it is nothing. Power plants generate thousands of megawatts, First Light generates 9. And the problem with solar energy at the moment is that there is no economy of scale. You build a farm with 300,000 panels, you get about 27 megawatts. And it goes without saying that this land can't be used for anything else. Fortunately, Ontario at least has passed regulations that will stop construction of these farms on land that is more suitable for actual farming. But the point remains, in terms of return on investment, solar is just not practical yet. And government should not be in the business of plunging forward with, nor mandating, technology which would not be embraced by the market as it stands now. Alternative energy is not yet in a position to be an effective substitute for traditional energy. These projects only serve to convey to the public the idea that it is, which will only harm the movement in the end.

None of the above is to say that First Light is not itself a wonderful feat of engineering. In fact it is a commendable one. I'm unaware of whether the installation can be upgraded with more advanced panels in the future. If it can be, that would temper my disappointment with the final product.

Even Better Than the Real Thing

If you were following my Twitter yesterday, you know that I had some thoughts about the setlists for the 2 U2 shows which took place at the Rogers Centre this week (9/16 and 9/17). Basically, I said that if I had been at either show (I wasn't), those setlists would have been a major letdown for me. Now there's something I have to say up front, before I get into a lot of detail here. If you have the chance to go to a U2 concert, go. Period. There is no way that concert will not be one of the top five shows you see in your lifetime. No matter what songs they play, the experience is that good. I was lucky (and I mean that, anyone who gets into these shows is lucky, fifty thousand more people want to go than there are tickets) to be at the September 16 2005 show of the Vertigo Tour (setlist here), and if it's not the greatest concert I've ever been to then it's number two. So what I'm about to talk about is, as I told a friend yesterday about something unrelated, a marginal problem. It is the difference between great and outstanding, it is the last half star in a four star review.

There was a lot of controversy this week because U2 chose not to play Pride, their signature song, at either of their Toronto shows. Now, I understand that playing the same song, more or less the same way, for twenty years can get boring. I've never accepted that reason though. First of all, tickets for these shows were not cheap. I think prices ran from about $60 to $230. For that money, I think the fans deserve to hear what they expect to hear, and when you go to a U2 concert, there are just certain songs you feel entirely justified in expecting to hear. Pride (in the Name of Love) has to be at the top of that list. At this point I'll invoke Mark Knopfler, who I once read in an interview say that he feels he owes playing his hits to the fans, because however he might feel about playing them personally, he knows that those songs were and are important to his fans in their own lives. Now that I've gotten all of that out of the way, here's my real reason for this post: my personal setlist of U2 favourites.

City of Blinding Lights
Magnificent
Kite
Two Hearts Beat as One
I Will Follow
Wire
Bad
Miracle Drug
Love or Peace or Else
Sunday Bloody Sunday
Beautiful Day
In God's Country
All I Want is You
Where the Streets Have No Name
One
Bullet the Blue Sky
Pride
I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking for
Running to Stand Still

encore
I'll Go Crazy If I Don't Go Crazy Tonight
Unknown Caller
Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses
Walk on

second encore
One Tree Hill
Fourty

Listen carefully

When you're being given statistics, it's always important to consider certain things. Consider the source. This one is obvious. Why is someone giving you this information, what is their goal, what are they trying to convince you of. We all use information to help make our case, I do it as much as anyone. We use what we think will make our case appear strongest, and we often neglect to include things which might weaken our case or distract from it. Something else to consider about information is what you are being given. Make sure you are aware of what you have been told and try to figure out what context you should put it in.

Today, President Obama was speaking at the University of Maryland. At one point in his speech, he mentioned that in America, "up to 98,000 people die every year from medical errors." Now simply reading that, you should notice something immediately; saying "up to" a number clearly does not mean the same thing as saying that number. What was the number last year? The year before that? The next thing you should think about is how broad the term "medical errors" is. What does it mean? What is included in it? Are these errors which occur during surgeries? Errors which happen at any point during someone's stay at a hospital? Suppose the number only applies to problems which occur during surgeries, and that 100,000,000 surgeries are performed each year. That would mean the rate of incidents causing death during surgery is less than 0.1%. This is the difference between being given real numbers and being given nominal numbers. Nominal numbers are figures, real numbers give you a greater sense for the whole.

My reason for posting about this is pretty clear, I really resented the President throwing around an arbitrary number completely without providing context for it. But it can also serve as a lesson for dealing with the constant stream of information we're assaulted with on a daily basis.

This analysis by Fouad Ajami in today's WSJ perfectly pinpoints my basic problem with President Obama's personal and governing philosophy. The contrast with Reagan is notably damning.

The failure of the Carter years was, in Reagan's view, the failure of the man at the helm and the policies he had pursued at home and abroad. At no time had Ronald Reagan believed that the American covenant had failed, that America should apologize for itself in the world beyond its shores. There was no narcissism in Reagan. It was stirring that the man who headed into the sunset of his life would bid his country farewell by reminding it that its best days were yet to come.

In contrast, there is joylessness in Mr. Obama. He is a scold, the "Yes we can!" mantra is shallow, and at any rate, it is about the coming to power of a man, and a political class, invested in its own sense of smarts and wisdom, and its right to alter the social contract of the land. In this view, the country had lost its way and the new leader and the political class arrayed around him will bring it back to the right path.

Thus the moment of crisis would become an opportunity to push through a political economy of redistribution and a foreign policy of American penance. The independent voters were the first to break ranks. They hadn't underwritten this fundamental change in the American polity when they cast their votes for Mr. Obama.

American democracy has never been democracy by plebiscite, a process by which a leader is anointed, then the populace steps out of the way, and the anointed one puts his political program in place. In the American tradition, the "mandate of heaven" is gained and lost every day and people talk back to their leaders. They are not held in thrall by them. The leaders are not infallible or a breed apart. That way is the Third World way, the way it plays out in Arab and Latin American politics.

Equality is not morality

If you were to ask me what the critical point in the discussion of healthcare is for me, the point the entire debate pivots on, I would tell you it is the conflict between the government and the market. And to those who would respond by saying there is not an inherent conflict between the two, that idea is nonsense. The market is voluntary, the government is coercive. The government is arbitrary, the market is personal. In the market, decisions are made by people. For the government, decisions are made through systems. Equally nonsensical is the notion that this is not a discussion of whether the government should be the arbiter of the AMerican healthcare system; the degree of the government's involvement in the system is always the point at issue.

Leaving aside the economic implications of bureaucratic rationing, namely the fact that in such systems the quality of the rationed goods tends to stagnate along with availibility, we are told that the key issue is the fairness of the system. Very well, I shall explore that. The thing big government types like about systems is that they are impersonal. It's all risk factors and shortages and numbers. "Sorry, but someone else needs that procedure more than you do right now. I'm sure it'll be your turn soon." But is that really more fair than not being able to afford the procedure? I say no. I would even go so far as to say that it is a great deal worse. If you design a formula which has the express purpose of determining who should be eligible for certain procedures, you are knowingly denying those procedures to those deemed to be ineligible. The difference between that system and a system which is governed by the principles of the free market is profound. There is nothing moral about a system which is designed to deny care to some in favour of others it views as more 'deserving.'

The Sultan of Swing

Today is Mark Knopfler's birthday. More than my favourite guitarist, he is my favourite musician. There is no music I listen to more often than his. He is the reason I began playing guitar, and he is the reason that first guitar was a Fender Stratocaster. He is the reason whatever songs I might play with a pick are the exception and not the rule. He has inspired my technique, my style, and my sound. Roc, blues, pop, country, folk; he has played them all, and brilliantly so. And all of the above praise are simply for him as a guitar player. As a songwriter, he has penned lyrics which envoke astounding emotion, depth, passion, and humanity. As well, Knopfler has composed not only all of his pop music, but many film scores, all of which reflect the classical beauty that is so distinctly his own. Happy birthday Mark!

The story they don't want you to know

I guess we're supposed to celebrate or something; Harvey Milk is being awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom today, posthumously of course. Except I'm not celebrating, not for a second. That's because I know about Harvey Milk, the way most people don't. I know the truth: harvey Milk was a despicable person, and if he weren't gay his name would be an epithet. He was a liar, a libeler, a bully, and a cynical politician to the core. That's the Harvey Milk Hollywood didn't want you to see.

Milk claimed that he was dishonourably discharged from the Navy because he was gay. He lied. After serving 4 years, he was honourable discharged; no one knew he was gay.
In a letter to President Carter, Milk libeled the parents of John Stoen, the 6 year old Guyanese boy kidnapped by Jim Jones. I'll return to Milk's sorted history with Jones in a moment.
Milk cynically outed Bill Sipple in 1975 to further his own political agenda.
Milk publically labeled anyone opposed to his agenda as Nazis, and tarred fellow gays opposed to his own views as collaborators.
Milk arranged for his own camera store to be vandalized, an attack which he then blamed on a public nemesis.

As previously mentioned, Harvey Milk Aided and Abetted one of the most notorious mass murderers in American history, the 'Reverend' Jim Jones. He did so not just in the matter of the latter's kidnapping of John Stoen, but in others. In exchange for Jones providing him campaign volunteers, Milk defended Jones as well as the presence of his Peoples Temple in the press and at City Hall. A week before his own murder, Jones and more than 900 of his followers were dead.

Finally, the idea that Milk was killed because he was gay is an absurd myth that persists to this day. When the 2 were killed on November 27 1978, by a supporter of gay rights, no more did Milk's sexuality play a part in his murder than did the fact that George Moscone was straight play a role in his. To their credit, at least the writers of the movie were relatively fair in dealing with this point.

So now you know the real Harvey Milk. And because you now know the man President Obama thinks is worthy of the Medal of Freedom, you now know a little more about him too.

The Abyss...

Reading the transcript of last night's press conference this morning, I can only describe my reaction as dispirited disdain. So much so that it is truly difficult to find a place at which to begin. So much was on display last night: the dishonesty, the outright lies, the attempted vilifying of good and decent Americans, the obfuscations, the shameful narcissism of it all. But I've got to start somewhere, so...

Any discussion of last night, and therefore of the current health care debate in general, must begin with the big lie; that nearly 50,000,000 Americans live in financial peril for lack of health insurance. As I have stated previously, this number is not only inaccurate, but has been constructed dishonestly in order to create a compelling talking point. In my view a fair yet liberal reading of the data involved would present a number perhaps as high as 18,000,000. The second dishonest number commonly used in the health care discussion is that 'more than 5 of every 7 bankruptcies are due to health care costs.' This is technically true, but again uses a dishonest number in order to make the problem appear bigger than it is. According to the latest data on the subject, the actual number of health care related bankruptcies in America is somewhat less than 550,000 per year. While each one of these cases is tragic, when combined they represent a number which is statistically insignificant, and their occasional occurrence does not necessitate the full-scale reconfiguration of the U.S. health care system.

The most egregious statements last night though had to be the President's repeated and insistent promise not to sign a health care bill which will increase America's deficit. Really, this is such utter nonsense. The Congressional Budget Office has recently revealed projections which will see the bills currently before congress add hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal deficit within 10 years. And that's assuming that the cost projections for the program hold, which they never do. Simply put, there is no way to forecast the size of this program, including how many individuals it will eventually cover.

Next, there is the President's claim that those who want to keep their current private insurance plans will be able to do so for as long as they like. This is simply not true. In fact, that this is not true is so central to the very concept of the proposed legislation that it is made clear within the first 20 pages of the House bill, the America's Affordable Health Choices Act. Health care plans purchased through an employer must be converted into plans which meet the same restrictions found in the governbment's 'managed care' plans within 5 years. Those who purchase their plans individually will have their plans converted even sooner. These are the facts on the table, and for the President to state definitively that they are not is at best cynical. Of course no public appearance by this President would be complete without more uses of the words "I" and "me" than you can count, and last night was no different. He even made sure to mention that some Republicans were playing politics with health care. I guess in his world that's more offensive than say, playing politics with...the Iraq War. And Heaven knows we never heard any Democrats talk about wanting to defeat President Bush on who knows how many issues for the last 8 years. But back to the matter at hand.

The President's assertion that increased government influence in the health care sector will produce lower costs and more choice in coverage is absurd on its face. Government involvement always results in less competition and less value for each dollar. Using Medicare as a template for being able to lower costs is a terrible example. The government is able to charge below cost for treatment under Medicare - we'll ignore the mind-blowing levels of fraud in the system for now - because providers simply pass on the difference to paying customers. That difference, along with cost inflation due to runaway legal fees and being forced to cover the treatment of people outside the system (illegal aliens) are the causes of spiraling medical costs in AMerica. As of now, the proposed legislation addresses none of these problems.

Lastly, by far the most disgusting moment of the night was the President's despicable slandering of doctors. He stated categorically that doctors routinely knowingly order unnecessary (and dangerous) tests for their patients specifically to collect on Medicare billings. I believe he made these statements entirely without cause, as so far the White House has failed to provide any basis for them this morning. For the President of the United States to question the integrity of a group of Americans as he did last night is beyond the pale. This, combined with his shameful rhetoric regarding the Cambridge, Massachusetts police officers, made sure that whatever respect I may have ever had for this man is now a distant memory.

Deflating news

On Friday morning we learned that the Canadian economy operated at an inflation rate in the second quarter of -0.3%. That's a roundabout way of saying that the Canadian economy is now officially experiencing deflation.

Deflation is one of those things which sounds nice - like universal health care, or the Employee Free Choice Act - but really isn't a good thing. The basic idea sounds harmless enough, even good; things are cheaper to buy. But in fact this is a bad thing, so bad that I along with many others would tell you that 1% inflation is vastly preferable to deflation as low as .5%. There are a few reasons for this.

First and most importantly to the current Canadian economy, sustained deflation lowers output. Because reducing wages in the short-term can be difficult, businesses simply reduce their workforce in order to get to the lower output level. The second danger of deflation is liquidity traps. Basically, a liquidity trap is a situation in which lenders will not lend to borrowers because they are discouraged from doing so by the low rate of return they will receive. The last point, which is somewhat connected to the second, is that deflation hammers debters. We can explain this through the idea that deflation represents lower prices. The corollary of that idea is obviously that a dollar holds greater value than it did before the deflation. This is a good thing, just not if you're in debt. That's because debt is not owed in real value, but rather in nominal value. You borrowed $10,000, you owe $10,000 (plus interest). So if you are holding debt, after deflation you're debt is now even more expensive than it was before.

So as you can see, the number of people for whom this news of deflation will turn out to be a good thing is really quite small. It's pretty much limited to retired individuals on fixed incomes who have literally paid off their debts to 0.

Ain't over till it's over

I still don't think I believe it. The Pittsburgh Penguins just completed what might be the most incredible post-season run in the history of pro sports. This team was dead and buried twice in the same series, a series they somehow won. The Penguins were dead after losing the first 2 games in Detroit, because teams just don't come back from down 2-0, and even if they did it wasn't going to happen against this Red Wings team. And they were dead after losing game 5 5-0, because how could a team possibly have anything left after a loss like that, and even if they somehow managed to win game 6 at home, there was no way in hell they could win game 7 in Detroit. And it wasn't just that they were playing a Detroit team which barely lost the President's Trophy to the long since eliminated Sharks, these were the defending Stanley Cup champs. In the end, in game 7 it wasn't the home team, the team full of champions who had all the experience in the world who were cool, calm, and collected, it was the visiters. It was the visiters who played a game free of mistakes and full of poise and defensive intensity. So a team beat the defending champions, in game 7, on the other team's home ice...as I said I still don't think I believe it.

And that was just the finals! I haven't even mentioned the Washington series. a series which will go down in history as one of the best ever. A series Pittsburgh lead 3-2 before losing at home, forcing the Penguins to win a game 7 against the Capitals in Washington, their first (but not last) unexpected road game 7 victory.

This was a Penguins team which was a disaster in February. They sat 10th in the Eastern Conference when they fired the coach who had taken them to the finals last year. If you believe that coaching matters in pro sports, then Dan Bylsma just pulled off the coaching job of the decade.

There is so much more to this story. There is Marc-Andre Fleury, who's game 5 performance last year ranks as one of the greatest ever, and just had a week which truly defies description. Or Hal Gill, Brooks Orpik, and Rob Scuderi, 3 American defencemen you've probably never heard of, who shut down the best offense in the NHL in games 6 and 7. Or the tale of Marian Hossa, who came close with the Penguins last year and then decided to sign with Detroit in the off-season, and in what can only be seen as an act of sports justice was denied a championship again as the team he left defeated the team he joined in a rematch. But those stories are for later. Tonight is about the extraordinary and the unexpected. Tonight is about reminding us that anything is possible if they'll let us play just one more game.

So congratulations to the 2008 Pittsburgh Penguins. After tonight you are not only champions, you are legends. As Mike Emrick would say, "Stanley Cup champions, no practice tomorrow!"