March Madness saved from insanity

The NCAA men’s basketball tournament  appears likely to only expand by three teams to 68. As you know, the fear was expansion to a ludicrous, event-destroying 96 team field.

Here’s what the NCAA homepage says about expansion:

After considering several options, the new deal proposes four opening-round games. The Division I Board of Directors will review the recommendation at its April 29 meeting.

But just as welcome news is that the new deal with CBS/Turner will allow all games to be shown live across four national networks – CBS, TBS, TNT and truTV – beginning in 2011. Woo, Pig-Soo-ieeeeeeeeeeeeee!

But it’s not all great. The assumption is that the additional 3 teams will round out the “play-in game” system. If so, I think this was a missed opportunity. The additional play-in game designees will all be from the smallest conferences. So now, instead of one team getting “screwed” and not getting their David v Goliath chance, four teams will be out before the real tip-off.

A better idea, which I first heard on the radio, would be to have the extra teams be “bubble” teams. This has a couple of benefits: you would go back to rewarding all conference champions, and the new “outer-bracket” games would pit bubble teams (familiar squads from mostly big conferences) against each other, creating much more TV interest. Nobody ever watched the one play-in game between the small unknown schools, so adding to that is lame. Take the last 8 teams that the selection committee lists for the at-large pool, and have them all play-in for the four #12 seed spots.

That would be a true expansion of the tournament that would actually increase fan interest, instead of killing the whole thing. Going to 96 teams would have meant watered-down later rounds (as it would be exponentially harder for the better teams to move on), a full additional weekend of games that would have burned TV fans out and reduced arena attendance even more. Plus, the #1 reason why March Madness is America’s #1 sporting event is because of the BRACKETS. It’s hard enough to fill them out in any kind of legit way now. With 96 teams everyone’s bracket would be busted before the Sweet 16. Or in my case, after the first 2 hours on Day 1.

NYC’s Dan Halloran: is the Center-Right alliance finally getting somewhere?

Check out this interview with Dan Halloran, New York City Council member.

Economic conservative with strong libertarian ties and an independent streak…bingo! 

He was just voted in to the council last year, but this guy should be an ideal candidate for the US House this fall (which looks like a distinct possibility).

Discovering this guy makes me hopeful that there are other folks out there at the state/local level of the same bent, just waiting to be tapped for a trip to DC. Then we’ll see some real change.

here’s more:

Draft Dan Halloran for Congress facebook page

danhalloran.org/blog

Taxes, tea and tyranny

This past week across the country, several “Tea Party” protests took place. Naturally, much of the media coverage of these protests focused on taxes, and for seemingly good reasons: the rally in DC was billed as the “Tax Day Tea Party”, one prominent event had a huge banner on-stage that said “Tax Revolt”, several Taxpayer advocacy groups were among the organizers / sponsors, and many of the speeches at the events focused or touched on the topic of taxes.

But the media attempted to paint the picture that the focus of the protesters’ ire is “Obama’s” taxes – presented as last year’s taxes (paid this year) – and that’s where things get a little tricky.

Now, it is true that a) Tea Party protesters don’t like Obama’s policies and his ideologies and b) as economic conservatives, they generally believe taxes should be lower.

However, the media seems intent to link those two elements in a simplistic, finite way. Basically, their goal seemed to be to point out that taxes have not gone up under Obama, and that, in fact, individual’s taxes for 2009 were relatively low. Most news outlets attempted to do this in more traditional journalistic ways. On her MSNBC show on the 15th, Rachel Maddow, of course, couldn’t help herself to smarmily beat her audience over the head with it: she sarcastically characterized the Tea Partiers’ general complaint as “President Obama and those commie Democrats in Congress have raised taxes sooooo much. Since they took over, taxes have just gone through the roof.”, and then going on to describe in detail how, in 2009, taxes “under Obama” were cut or historically low.

In either case, the not-so-subtle implication is that Tea Party protesters and their supporters are either misinformed, untruthful (in a politically or even racially motivated way), or just plain stupid.

The problem is, it’s a straw-man argument. X is true, so y necessarily follows. Only x is what’s not really up for debate.

For one, a recent poll of Tea Party protesters and supporters showed that many believe they currently pay a fair amount of taxes  (currently being the key word). What the poll also showed is that many have a problem with the way their taxes are spent, specifically, they feel that an unacceptable portion of the taxes are spent in a wasteful manner.

It’s not that the Tea Party and those of the same ilk have a problem with their 2009-2010 tax returns. I didn’t hear one sound bite from anyone giving a speech or being interviewed last week say that in this last fiscal year, the taxes they paid went “through the roof”. What they have a problem with is how the decisions of yesterday and today will virtually certainly impact their taxes in years to come.

As the media points out, the tax cuts in Obama’s stimulus are what created this past fiscal year’s relatively lower taxes this year. But the Tea Party was against the stimulus from the beginning, because they saw through it as one of Obama’s short-term, politically-motivated fixes to a long-term problem. Sure, taxes are lower today. The price of that is, by including billions of otherwise unfunded dollars to a bill (in that case, the stimulus), taxes will necessarily need to go up tomorrow.

The vast majority of Americans, no matter what their political bent, have no problem at all with paying a legitimate, fair amount in taxes. But it’s an issue that rightly should face unending scrutiny, because it may be the single most important element of the government-citizen relationship in our country. As the existence of today’s Tea Party movement reminds us, it was the very issue of taxation that in many ways directly lead to the American Revolution: “No taxation without representation” was the colonists’ rallying cry. In the Declaration of Independence, King George was, among other things, proven to be a tyrant “For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent”.

And after all, it is now as it was then: since the government should be by, of and for the people, the very granting of the power to garnish a portion of one’s wages, the very fruit of one’s labor, to the government comes with an inherent caveat – the money better be spent wisely.

What the Tea Party (and every economic conservative) is looking at is the myriad ways they feel their (and future generations) tax dollars will have to be spent, based on recent policies (nearly all of which originated with the Democrats or under Obama/Pelosi recently). They are rightly concluding that taxes will be increased and/or mis-spent in the future, considering that:

– 47% of American households pay no federal income taxes. Despite how the New York Times tries to spin that, that’s a disturbing, unsettling fact on it’s own.

– State and local taxes are already high in some places, and forecast to explode nearly everywhere – mostly due Federal policies. States are going broke primarily because of unsustainable Medicare and Medicaid mandates. The only way for them to recoup those costs is through taxing the public – or get bailed out by the Federal government (either way, it’s the taxpayer’s dime).

– Corporations pay a large portion of the nation’s total tax bill. Do small businesses fall into the same “wealthy” category as that of huge multi-nationals and wealthy individuals, having to pay into the same top tax bracket? If it’s true, as I hear all the time, that “small businesses are the engine of our economy”, then shouldn’t they get extra breaks (and not just in short-term stimulus bills, but annually by law for the long-term)? Most people in the work force understand that, large or small, the more money their company has to pay the government, the less money there is for them to hire new workers or give them a raise. And when it comes to the economy, isn’t it all about jobs?

– New spending legislation recently passed (healthcare reform) or in the hopper (cap-and-trade) costing undisputed trillions of dollars we know we don’t have. Again, there’s only one source to pay these bills when they come due down the road.

– Social Security is broken. When it was instituted back in FDR’s days, people lived an average of 63 years. Social Security kicked in at 65. At the time, there were about 40 workers paying Social Security taxes for every 1 retired person. Today, people are living on average past 65, and the ratio of workers to retired people is nearly 2:1. Once all the baby boomers retire, and medical advances keep them alive longer, that ratio will be less than 1:1 on the workers side. The Social Security trust fund is forecast to run into the negative in the next 30 years or so. It’s simply an unsustainable system unless taxes to keep it afloat go up.

– About a week or so ago, Paul Volcker, the head of President Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, characterized the idea of instituting a European-style Value-Added Tax (VAT) as “not as toxic an idea” as was presumably once thought. The VAT tax is a tax on production and consumption – it generates a tax on a good or service at every stage of its life cycle, from production through consumption.

This CBS News article on the VAT disgustingly sums up the case for a VAT, and increases in taxes in general as such:

Americans as a whole did not squawk when spending rose during the Bush administration, and in electing Barack Obama, they voted for bigger government. At some point, the politics we have voted for have to be paid for. A VAT is likely to be part of the answer.

Ahh, right. Everyone who voted for Obama was knowingly voting for more taxes. So the spin is now, “C’mon, he told us things were going to change, you knew what that meant.” Unreal.

Taxation without representation was tyrannical. But just as wrong is its evil cousin, tyranny disguised in sheep’s clothing: taxation with misrepresentation.

Deconstructing Tiger: it’s still all about the Green

As the Masters began this week, the inevitable media circus around Tiger Woods’ return to golf since crash-gate / text-gate took a weird and disappointing turn, albeit one that isn’t completely unexpected or even understandable.

On Monday, Woods’ presser at Augusta left many feeling that Tiger had possibly honestly turned a new page in his professional life: he said he’d be more gracious with the fans, more respectful of the game. He’d implied in his few public appearances since his world came crashing down around him that he’d come to realize that love and family were more important to him than golf and money. For long-time Tiger detractors like me, these were welcome words. There’s never been any denying his greatness as a competitor. I just always thought that he a) acted like a spoiled brat on the course, flinging both clubs and expletives around after each wayward drive; and b) didn’t appreciate the fact that his fortune and fame were due to his fans adoration of him, not solely because of his amazing talent (nobody knows who the world’s best chess player is). But even more than that, I could never root for Tiger because he seemed so inhuman – the clinical way he approached the game; there was no real joy in victory, just warrior-like howls of being the killer and not the killed. Maybe this whole episode in his life had given him a new perspective. Maybe Tiger, finally, had become humble – and therefore, human.

But as play began on Thursday, a few things occurred that made it seem like not much had really changed at all. Yeah, he smiled at a few more kids and joked a little more with his playing partners. But once he heard the cheers from the galleries off the first tee and on the 9th green (after an incredible rescue shot out of the pines), he reverted right back to his old ways: strutting around with that cold, cocksure attitude around Amen corner, and slamming clubheads and f’ing an offline approach to 14.

But even more unsettling was a strange, eerie Nike commercial that came out that day. It features a close-up of  silent, stoic, sober, somber Woods with a voice-over from his late father Earl. If you haven’t seen it yet, here it is:

Now,  it’s fine that he’s again acknowledging that what he did was wrong, and that he’s going to try to learn from his mistakes. It’s not the message that’s the problem here, it’s the execution.

And the hypocrisy.

Tiger went out of his way in his first staged statement in February that his family – including his mother – was off-limits to the media and the public, as the ordeal was a “private matter”. OK, fine. But, now, it’s OK for him to exploit his dead father for commercial purposes? This ad isn’t about golf, it’s about everything that’s been going on his life.

And it’s about Nike. There’s a swoosh on his hat, on his shirt, and then one flashes on-screen with the last frame. Specifically, this is about Tiger showing his loyalty to Nike more than the other way around. It’s his way of thanking them for not dropping him like nearly all his other sponsors. First day of the most anticipated Masters ever (because of everything surrounding him), and he drops a bomb in the form of an attention-grabbing ad with the swoosh plastered all over it? (Don’t think for a second that Tiger isn’t the one who called all of these shots). He’s basically saying with this ad: I’m going to stop at nothing – not even the memory of my dead father (who he always claimed unending respect for) – for things to get back to the way they were. I’m still going to be the face of Nike. I’m going to make millions of dollars for us again. I’m going to be the same old Tiger you always knew: money first, fame second, everything else – including family and fans – third. This was just a bump in the road, a minor detour off our original course. Nike and Tiger Woods will once again be Kings of the Sports Marketing world. I’m going to go back to dominating the way I always did, and I’m going to do it my way. The public will forgive if I appear remorseful, if I say the right things, because this is the land of second chances. The fans will forget once I start winning again, because everybody loves a winner.

To be honest though, I think,  in all probability, Tiger Woods is an extremely conflicted individual right now. He’s in his mid 30’s now, still a brand new father,  so he’s maturing in a new way anyway. Mentally, he knows what he did was “wrong”. He knows he needs to change his behavior.  But, on a psychological level, how on earth does he actually do that, when everything he’s done in the past that has led him to achieve that all that success, was completely antithetical to those things? That supreme confidence that it took to hit on models (including his wife) and the unadulterated arrogance to slap around porn stars? That’s the same confidence and arrogance that first lead him to become the world’s most dominant (and richest) athlete. Because if he’s not that, then what is he? That’s his whole identity, it’s what he’s always known. How does he stop being the “Tiger”? Imagine for a second if he’s not blessed with this unparalleled talent – and he’s just Eldrick, the nasal, kinda nerdy guy. No human male who has achieved any level of success can instantly and voluntarily change the way he goes about his business  – not until he knows exactly how to make that transition without it affecting the bottom line. And that can’t happen in four short months, therapy or not. What if he “changes” and, as a result, everything else changes too? If you’re a young successful male, that’s unacceptable. If you’re Tiger Woods, it’s pretty much unthinkable.

So he’s putting forth one face, but he’s really trying to get everything back to the way it used to be. The Nike ad this week is perfectly emblematic of that. I don’t blame him (nor do I feel bad for him). He knows he should change, he’s just incredibly frightened by not only how to do that, but what might become if he does. Now that’s human.

Opie Overrated: Frost/Nixon is just the next in line

One February not too long from now, on an Oscar night not too far away, Ron Howard is gonna get a standing “o” as he walks up to receive that infamous Lifetime Achievement Award. Hollywood luminaries young and old will applaud and nod their heads earnestly, with that “Yes. Yes. Great career, great career” look on their smug faces. A few scant tears will even appear. The montage that precedes his speech will scroll through the usual suspects: Cocoon, Apollo 13, Cinderella Man, and of course, A Beautiful Mind.

It will be a friggin farce.

Frost/Nixon will be a part of that montage as well. And just like the rest of Howard’s catalogue, it will be incorrectly be looked upon as a major work from a major director. Because Frost/Nixon is just the next overrated, overwrought film in Howard’s long line of repulsively commercial efforts – that started off as harmless pleasers like Splash and evolved into pretentious, clichéd blockbusters like Backdraft and Far and Away, until finally reaching the pitiful lows of The DaVinci Code.

The direction in Frost/Nixon is completely lacking in inspiration. Howard shows little to no interest whatsoever in taking any real risks, or doing anything remotely original. Instead, he relies on the old, familiar look and feel of his previous period-pieces. Like the rest of his films, from a shot-making perspective, it’s basically paint-by-numbers. Safe, sure, spineless.

The results of the few non-standard choices Howard does make range from inconsistent to downright incompetent. These are evident from the very beginning, as he  employs the use of mockumentary-style interviews with some of the supporting characters for exposition. It comes off as awkward, gimmicky and false because the film is, well, not a mockumentary.

Even worse is his often-times incomprehensible use of lighting. For some reason, he appears to have a near-fetish need for shadows – often across the principal characters faces (and at key moments, no less). This occurs primarily indoors, as evidenced in a scene at the Plaza Hotel in New York City. It’s either early morning or late afternoon, and the sun is presumably streaming in between the curtains. The execution is laughably bad – you can tell they just set up huge floodlights right outside of the window on set. The scene is marred with blinding ultra-washouts of brightness along with distracting jagged shadows. Instead of a soft, glowing sunlight effect that would have made the actors expressions dance, they look ill in the light (and hidden in the dark).  I suppose you could say it served the purpose of symbolizing Nixon’s shadiness…but he does it with virtually all of the characters. Later on, during the interview scenes, the background shadow effect is used to highlight the tete-a-tete between the titular foes, and it does work there.

Frost is played with dynamic aplomb by Michael Sheen, a rising talent who nails all of Frost’s charming highs and exasperating lows with equal skill. His playboy spark gives the film instant life. At first, the project is a brash, brazen career move for the TV host/entertainer (“just think of the numbers it’ll get”), but Sheen deftly handles Frost’s gradual realization that unless he gets the goods on Nixon, the whole endeavor will ultimately be professionally ruinous for him.

As well, the tower of talent that is Frank Langella pulls off an excellent Nixon. Although he does make some strange choices – he gives Nixon’s oft-imitated voice a languid, rolling garble (in reality his diction was actually quite sharp) – he still manages to lend him that larger-than-life, presidential aura; that eerie magnetism that is innate and unmistakable. Langella gives Nixon gravitas, despite his reputation. He goads Frost for most of the film, assuming he has the upper hand intellectually, confident he’ll emerge victorious and re-claim his stature with the American people. But he challenges him on nearly every level, almost as if, deep down, he wants to admit his guilt and get it all off his chest…but only if Frost has the balls to step up and get it out of him. Nixon opens the door, Frost just has to have the courage to walk through it. Langella prods, teases, drills and growls his way into his adversary’s head. It’s a virtuoso performance.

Unfortunately, rest of the cast doesn’t pan out as well. The usually reliable Kevin Bacon comes of as weak and ineffectual. I’m sure it was a character choice by Bacon to show the shallowness of  Tricky Dick’s post-Presidency chief protector, but it just doesn’t work . Playing against type is one thing, having been miscast is another.  As well, the normally engaging Sam Rockwell and the always interesting Oliver Platt, as Frost’s co-producers, are rendered  mostly flat as well. Worst of all, the role of Frost’s girlfriend serves literally no purpose whatsoever.   

Don’t get me wrong – Frost/Nixon is not a bad film. It just could have been infinitely better. There are those tense, explosive moments, like Nixon’s late-night call to Frost and of course their final showdown, that leave the average audience member (and most critics) satisfied. Give most film school grads a multi-million dollar budget, and few would completely drop the ball with subject matter this historic, engaging and relevant. After all, the Frost-Nixon interviews really did happen, and they were a media phenomenon at the time. Add that to the fact that this fictionalized version of the events was first a successful play – with Sheen and Langella in the original roles – and you’ve got as sure-fire a success as any in Hollywood.

Ron Howard’s (non) progression as a filmmaker mirrors his career as a child actor: Opie turned into Richie, but he never really grew up – he just got older. Time passed, but nothing else really changed.

The NFL’s new overtime rule…meh

Earlier this week, the NFL voted in favor of changing the rules for overtime in playoff games. If you don’t already know, the bottom line is that a team can’t win the game with a field goal on the first possession in OT. Any go-ahead scores after that, winner winner chicken dinner. It’s being called “modified sudden death”.

Now, this isn’t a case of fixing something that wasn’t broken – indeed a change was needed. Pure luck was becoming too big a factor, as they point out:

Overall, the team that correctly called the coin toss won overtime games 59.8 percent of the time in the last 15 years

That ~10% difference over the anticipated norm was significant, no doubt. Of course, this problem is magnified in the playoffs, when an “unfair” loss cannot be overcome, as the post-season tournament is single-elimination.

The question then is, was this the right change?

The answer is: well,…meh. “Barely” is the best I can do.

Here’s what they got right: It’s true, the whole “team X has a decent kickoff run-back, makes a first down or two and kicks a field goal to end it” always did feel like a cheap ultimate resolution to an otherwise mighty affair. Plus, this extends the game, if even just a little. I mean, a close NFL game between 2 good teams with the season on the line…who doesn’t want more of that? Fans? Advertisers? C’mon! More, more, more!

Here’s what they got wrong: First, the whole “this brings some new interesting strategy to the game” position is flawed. Sure, it will be interesting to see in certain situations (around the opp 30 yard line, 3rd or 4th and short), whether coaches will play it safe off the bat and go for a field goal, versus being aggressive and feeling the need to score a TD. But just because a new wrinkle is interesting, doesn’t mean it is right. We could come up with a million ideas that would be interesting, but that doesn’t mean they are inherently good for the game. It would be interesting if there was a rule that Al Davis could call plays from the owners box, but that wouldn’t be good for the game. Oh, wait, bad example…

(Oh, and PS: Rex Ryan, spare me the macho “we now might actually choose to kick-off, since our D is so good, we can play field-position and be in better shape to just need a FG to win, or worst-case scenario tie it up”. Right, and what happens when you do that and the other team runs the kick-off back for a TD to knock you out of the playoffs? You lose your friggin job, genius.)

But even worse, they tried to keep the supposed sanctity of sudden death. The NFL has this insane notion that its tradition of sudden death cannot be lost. So now, if the team that possesses the ball in OT first scores a touchdown, they still win, and any post-first possession score that results in a lead wins it as well. Whoo-eee, excitement!  

But the sudden-death = excitement argument has always been flawed. It presupposes that the alternative – an extended time period (say, 8 minutes, normal football rules and strategies apply) – is not exciting, or not as exciting.

Hello!

Picture this: it’s overtime in Super Bowl L (ie SB 50), and a 46-year old Brett Favre is the QB of the New York Giants (Eli was so rich he retired the previous year). They are facing the New York Jets, who reached and lost the previous 4 Super Bowls. The rule is, there is an 8:00 minute overtime, team leading at the end of that is the winner, still tied goes to a 2nd OT. The Giants notched a FG on their opening possession of OT, and the Jets came back with a solid, five plus minute drive and pounded in a TD. But the Giants block the extra point (don’t tell me all this isn’t a realistic scenario, because you know it totally is), so the Jets have a 3 point edge with less than 2 minutes to go. Favre, who tearfully swore on media day this will be his last game, takes possession, makes a few quick strikes downfield to get the G-men just outside the red zone. No timeouts left, clock is ticking, crowd is tearing the roof off, 65% of the televisions on in America are tuned in to the game…you’re telling me that’s not the most exciting moment in the history of the sport?

Check that – of any sport?

The Death of Journalism exemplified: Sarah Palin hysteria goes overboard

Sarah Palin has, of course, been skewered in the press on a regular basis since she became John McCain’s running mate in ’08. The latest hubbub surrounding her is not only an unequivocal non-story, but a prime example of how the “media” misleads the public based on bias.

It all starts out with an article (or is it a post?) on the The Washington Independent website. The Washington Independent describes itself as ” a fleet-footed webpaper of politics and policy” that “aim(s) for snap-crackle-pop reporting in our articles and blog posts”  with a goal “to stir things up and to keep the bastards honest”. I guess one can take that for what it’s worth. But from that, it seems to me like it’s less a journalistic organization that strives for integrity and more just a bunch of holier-than-thou bloggers with some funding. It also states that it is “a news and commentary site”, but it doesn’t seem to clearly denote what content is news and what is commentary.

It goes on to explain that they are part of the “American Independent News Network”, which “created the New Journalist Pilot Program to test the hypothesis that a melding of blog technology with the standards of professional journalism could produce original news and information”. Their donor list consists of, among others, an organization called “The Bohemia Foundation” (which is led by heavy Democrat donor Pat Stryker); the “Open Society Institute”, which was created by super-lib George Soros; the “Streisand Foundation” (yes, her); and, of course, none other than the National Education Association. At this point it’s only a wonder that the SEUI and Acorn aren’t on the list.

So basically what we’ve got here is a website with deeply liberal Democrat party roots, that is blurring the line between journalism and opinion, and attempting tp meld the separate notions of “reporting” and “blogging”.

So back to the matter at hand. A writer named David Weigel (that the site describes as “a reporter covering the conservative movement”) authors a story/post yesterday titled Palin: Growing Up, I ‘Hustled Over the Border’ For Health Care. Weigel describes Palin’s “admission” that her family received health care in Whitehorse, Canada when they lived in Skagway, Alaska as “shocking”. In an update, he wonders that since the distance from Skagway to Whitehorse is “about as far from Skagway to Juneau (the Alaskan capital)” that “the question remains why the family “hustled” to a country with, at the time, the beginnings of government-run health care.”

Well Dave, I’ll tell you why. And the reason I can tell you is not because of any intimate knowledge of Alaska, but simply the fact that I know how to use Mapquest – which clearly shows Skagway as a remote location with direct roads to Whitehorse, but only mountains and water between it and Juneau. In fact, if you “get directions” from Skagway to Juneau, it tells you to take a ferry for 87% of the 100-mile trip. (I think it’s safe to go out on a limb and assume that since there are no roads connecting the two locations today, that there weren’t in the early 60’s).

I think it’s also safe to assume that in raising their family in a remote, rural Alaskan location, the elder Palins were more concerned with the practical issues of getting their kids health care, and not the philosophical (or, especially, political) ones.

All of this not to mention the obvious fact that Palin was a small child at the time, with neither the conception of the difference between free-markets and government subsidies, nor the capacity to do anything about it if she did.

So how this reflects on her, or even her parents, as “shocking” is patently absurd. But of course, it gets linked to by the Huffington Post, and then it spreads like wildfire not only across the blogosphere, but ends up on Yahoo’s front page in the “news” section. The Huffington Post piece claims that “she and her family once found it more alluring than, at the very least, the coverage available in rural Alaska” . Right. As if the six-year-old Palin herself  (who “now views Canada’s health care system as revolting”) and her family chose to go to Canada simply because their single payer-system was so “alluring” compared to what was available to them in the US. Oh, the hypocrisy!

Please, spare me.

If the “media” is going to continue down this path, and opt for sensationalism, half-truths and in some cases, lies ([cough], Dan Rather, [cough]), the dumbing-down of American society will not only continue, but start to multiply exponentially. Combine that with the systematic erosion of the national education system, and you’ve got one big, uninformed, uneducated country. You think the economy is bad now? This is only the beginning…

Zach Galifianakis: an SNL monologue to remember

In case you missed it, Zach Galifinakinakaranamanikis whateverthehellhisnameis gave one of the best SNL monologues in years the other night. No props, no audience participation, no cast member help, no tricks, no gimmicks (well, except the piano). Just straight-up, unconventional, irreverant, random, fearless stand-up comedy.

OK, maybe he’s just a bearded, lower-key, slightly higher-brow Jack Black…but that’s good thing, right?

(better quality link here):

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/clips/zach-monologue/1207090/

Big East Update: 3/4/10

It’s early March, so it’s Bubble Time! The Madness is nearly here…

In preperation, here’s a quick rundown of what each Big East team needs in the next week in regards to the NCAA tournament.

Syracuse: Lock, #1 seed. Period.

West Virginia: Lock, a win at ‘Nova or Big East Tourney final can get them a #2 seed.

Villanova: Lock, win over WVa and a  Big East Tourney final can get them a #1 seed.

Pittsburgh: Lock, Big East Tourney championship can get them a #2 seed.

Georgetown: Lock, Big East Tourney championship can get them a #3 seed, maybe a #2 if they do it over ‘Cuse. But 2 straight losses could drop them down to even a #7.

Marquette: In, and even 2 straight losses wouldn’t put them on the bubble. They are 20-9 and 12-6 in conference (the 6 conference losses are by a combined 13 points!). No major non-conference wins though, so even a deep Big East Tourney run wouldn’t nab them a high seed. Prediction: dangerous #7 seed.

Louisville: In right now, a win over ‘Cuse (which would be a sweep) and a few Big East Tourney wins can get them up to a #6 seed. But 2 straight losses would put them back on the bubble. Prediction: they wither at the Garden and just miss a chance to dance.

Notre Dame: In right now, but it’s all still way up in the air. Is Harangody coming back? Will the selection committee take his absence into account? Are they maybe better without him? Does anyone care? Prediction: they lose at Marquette on Saturday, win their first easy game at MSG and then lose to one of the heavyweights (translation: they will be the definition of bubble team next Sunday, too much depends on what happens elsewhere in the country).

Connecticut: Bubble. Lunardi has them in as a #12, apparently as the last major in, despite the loss at ND last night. A loss at S Florida on Saturday would require a deep, impressive Big East Tourney run to hold on to a double-digit seed. Prediction: they get their act together next week and have everyone calling them a sleeper by Selection Sunday.

Seton Hall: Bubble, obviously need to win their last 2 games (at both Rutgers and Providence) plus score a big upset in the Big East Tourney to stay in consideration. Prediction: they do so and nab one of the last at-large spots.  

Cincinnati: Bubble, barely. A win at G’town on Sat would go a long way, but in all likelihood they need to win it all at MSG to get in. Prediction: sorry, ‘Cats.

South Florida: Out, but still breathing. A home win Sat over UConn is a must though, plus they need to hold their own and score a few solid wins in the Big East Tourney to be truly bubbling. Prediction: a nice step forward this year, but they’re not there yet.

St. John’s, Providence, Rutgers and DePaul are all out, barring of course a miracle cinderella run in the conference tourney.

C’mon, get psyched – hoops heaven is mere days away…

Reconciliation: Both sides are right, both sides are wrong…so what’s the answer?

As the never-ending health care reform saga lingers on, the issue of reconciliation has taken a front seat in the controversy. As you may or may not have gathered by now, “reconciliation” is a parliamentary procedure in the Senate that is essentially an end-run by the majority around the threat of a filibuster by the minority. In plain terms, it’s a simple majority of 51 votes (as opposed to the traditional 60 vote super-majority) being needed to pass legislation. The Democrats in the majority are currently considering using reconciliation to pass health care.

There’s a  lot of levels to this, a lot to digest. First, let’s consider the arguments from both sides of the aisle.

The Republicans position is that reconciliation was intended to only be used in budgetary matters, and in fact the “Byrd amendment” confirms this and prohibits it’s use in non-budget items.

The Democrats position is that reconciliation is not rare, and has been used primarily in the past by Republicans.  And the few times it was used for non-budget matters, Republicans were at the helm.

Both positions are factually correct. The Republicans are wrong for using it in the past the way they did – they broke the “rule” first. Democrats are wrong for using that precedent to their advantage, essentially saying that two wrongs make a right.

So both sides are both right and wrong. Unless the Supreme Court intervenes (and I would challenge Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to file to do so if need be), the decision comes down to the Senate’s Parliamentarian, who’s “ruling” is non-binding and can be over-ridden by the President of the Senate; i.e. the Vice President of the United States. So we all know how that would go.

Since what actually will happen has nothing do with what is right or wrong, let’s think about the pros and cons of reconciliation in and of itself.

Pros: The original intention of reconciliation was to help legislators be more financially responsible with regards to budgetary matters.

This procedure was originally designed as a deficit-reduction tool, to force committees to produce spending cuts or tax increases called for in the budget resolution.

So even if there are some sticky details, the process can provide the final push-through on things everyone (at least in the majority) generally agrees about. So instead of legislative gridlock, reconciliation could allow a budget not only to pass, but be more fiscally sound as well. Congress saving time and money…woohoo! Who woulda thunk it?

Cons:  It takes away the one protection the minority party has: the filibuster. In the big picture, this is antithetical to some of the most sacred American ideals.

The rights and protection of the “minority” (in terms of the group that holds the less popular position in a debated issue) was always a primary principle of the Founding Fathers. They were, of course, fearful of the “tyranny of the majority” – the idea that the resulting power of those in the majority could be just as oppressive to those in the minority as that of a King (kinda the whole point of the Revolution, right?). In fact, the US Senate itself is a testament to this: it’s very structure limits the power and influence of larger states over smaller ones. This was confirmed by Alexis de Tocqueville, who saw the majority’s tyranny over political minorities as “a constant threat” to American democracy.

Because we need to remember: a real, pure democracy is one person, one vote; and the majority rules. We don’t have that. We have a very advanced derivative of that: a constitutional, representative republic, that can accurately be short-handed to “American democracy” (as in, the version of democracy that we came up with and use). The Senate rules are the premier embodiment of this when passing legislation – if the majority simply rules there, then it could be argued that  “American democracy” ceases to exist.

So in short: reconciliation is at best a well-intentioned legislative manuever to save time and potentially be financially responsible, and at worst is a bastardized perversion of our essential founding principles. Even taking recent precedent into account, which side would you want to be on?

Note: to be clear, a 51 vote “simple majority” is all that is required to pass a bill in the Senate. However, the 60 vote “supermajority” has been used frequently in the recent past as the standard threshold, since that is what is required for cloture (which ends debate and prevents a potential filibuster). The need for cluture due to the threat of filibuster has admittedly been used way too often (the filibuster rightly should only be used in extraordinary circumstances). However, in the case of healthcare reform, with so much at stake (17% of the economy, controversial sweeping social change), the protection of the minority via the filibuster option is arguably quite appropriate.