Two Rants, Loosely Connected

JW,

I've been waiting to complain about this story for quite a while. As its headline suggests, the article predicts an upcoming war over whether or not to extend the federal income tax credit for first-time home buyers. Given the fact that Cash For Cars You're Sick Of . . . er, Cash For Clunkers . . . practically had to be killed with a silver stake through its heart, I'm predicting that the home buyers' credit doesn't go quietly. As anyone familiar with Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and Welfare can attest, it's almost impossible to stop giving people money once you've signed that first check. The word "entitlement," it seems, was chosen for a reason.

As was the bill in question, whose shades of optimism and egalitarianism ("Let's all own a home!") are meant to disguise its essential foolishness. A power grab and a misguided attempt at economic intervention (see "Socialism"), the tax credit is yet another example of the government favoring one group (those too young or poor to have bought a home before 2009) over another (everyone else). The fact that the arena in question (housing) is one in which artificial intervention already screwed us once only deepens the harm. Some lessons just refuse to be learned.

The problem, as usual, is that most people are either too simple-minded or too greedy to look beneath the surface of what appears at first glance to be a pain-free gift. Buy a house and get eight grand. Not a tax break but a credit--a check for $8,000 even if you didn't pay anywhere near that much in taxes (and many, many people don't). $8,000 is a tactile thing; its impact is immediately felt. Spending money that doesn't exist, though, is deceptive. There's no immediate consequence, and nothing but logic and a study of history reveals that the end of the road must be higher taxes, decreased benefits in other arenas, or national bankruptcy. Obama knows this, of course, as do members of Congress. But tomorrow's Americans can't vote in today's elections--they can only be ruined by them. Perhaps more than anything else, Conservatism is about understanding that fact.

-GM

GM,

Your entry describes perfectly why we need conservatism to have the loudest possible voice in our government. "Tomorrow's Americans can't vote in today's elections," nor can today's Americans vote outside of their own personal box (i.e. on principle), nor can today's Americans understand that scarcity is an actual, certain phenomenon that cannot be overcome no matter how "paperized" the monetary trail becomes. If individual citizens are to will themselves to believe that debt, whether personal or federal, can never hurt you, we need our decision makers to steer the ship using their knowledge to the contrary. This is why a dictatorship would theoretically be the most superior form of government if the dictator also happened to be the smartest, wisest, fairest, most moral person in the country. Popularity, usually gained by appealing to a sea of ignoramuses, wouldn't drive policy.

Meanwhile, the government of college football runs freely without having to worry about the opinions of its followers. Most people want a playoff, but the college football presidents insist on relying on computers and the opinions of buffoons, morons, and the archaic. Take a look at the latest coaches' poll. California, despite losing 42-3 to Oregon and having the same record, is ranked six spots ahead of Oregon! Penn State lost at home to a still-undefeated Iowa and remains four spots ahead of the Hawkeyes. In what world does that make sense?! The only reason Penn State and Cal remain ahead of teams with objectively better credentials is that these coaches value their own preseason rankings ahead of what has actually happened!!! And this s--t dictates post-season fates!

-JW

Monday Football Roundup: Chaos and Regret

JW,

When the 2010 NFL season rolls around, remind me not to make any picks or predictions until at least week four. Though I followed what are usually reliable instincts, last Monday's collection of idiotic pronouncements was so bad I feel like President Obama when his teleprompter goes out--floundering, stuttering, and so message-less it's a miracle I'm allowed to keep my current job, much less get a "better" one. Though ranking the Rams below the utterly hapless Tampa Bay Bucs was a grave error indeed, it's nothing compared to my worst mistake: pronouncing the Cincinnati Bengals' season over. After watching the Bengals outplay the Pittsburgh Steelers yesterday, I'm ready to declare the obvious. Ochocinco was right, and I was wrong. And if you don't think it hurt to type that admission, well . . . child, please!

Here's the thing: Take away Brandon Stokley's crime of the century and you're left with a 3-0 Bengals team that's opened the season by impressing the hell out of everyone on Hard Knocks, beating a popular Super Bowl pick on the road, and knocking off last year's champion at home. In addition to trotting out noteworthy skill players (plural) for the first time in ages, the Bengals just seem tough, committed to something. I can't believe I'm saying this, but after seeing them claw back into contention yesterday after giving up 13 to start the game, I found myself expecting them to pull it out. Given the Pittsburgh-Will-Never-Lose-Or-Win-By-More-Than-Three principle, I even guessed the final score!

Despite the fact that the Bengals are 2-1 rather than undefeated, I love them as a dark horse wildcard team. Yeah, they've got the same record on paper as the odious Packers and Bears, but wouldn't you take them over either of those teams? In a heartbeat? Maybe I'm making too much of three games, but this looks like a team that's breaking some hearts come December.

What did you see this weekend?

-GM

GM,

You're not thinking clearly, although you did tell me before the end of the Titans/Steelers game in Week 1 that Pittsburgh won't win or lose a game by more than three points--an astonishingly wise, barely hyperbolic prediction. Sure, Cincinnati has been much more impressive than we've expected, but there are only two wildcard spots per conference these days, and the Bengals aren't getting one. Do you honestly think Cinci will finish with a better record than the Jets/Patriots, the Chargers/Broncos, and the Steelers?! (My prediction that Baltimore would cruise is so coming true, so forget about a division title for the Bengals.) Sure, Denver might lose its next five games (Dallas, New England, San Diego, Baltimore, Pittsburgh), but you know the AFC East is taking a wildcard spot, and if you trust Cincinnati to take advantage of an easy schedule, you're much less jaded than I am.

As for the college game, I still feel good about my analysis from a week ago. Miami lost, sure, but it had the toughest game of all the ranked teams last week. Meanwhile, Boise State rolled (and covered) again, and Alabama made a huge statement against Arkansas. I proclaimed Ole Miss, North Carolina, Kansas, Missouri, and Michigan to be losers. Two of them lost, and the others beat Southern Miss, Nevada, and Indiana by a combined 20 points. Of my question marks, Penn State, Cal, and LSU proved to be in the loser category. You don't go into Starkville and come four inches from losing to Mississippi State without taking a free fall in the mental standings of college football intellectuals. The Tigers play at Georgia this week and host Florida the next. It'll take a hell of a lot of opponent swine flu for LSU to get through those unscathed.

I'll close with a prediction and a question. An undefeated Boise State team could actually play for the national championship ahead of a one-loss BCS-conference team, mainly because the program has earned so much respect this decade. But can an undefeated Houston team play for the championship under any circumstances?! Sure, with defense like this (0:25 is particularly bad), the Cougars will get blown out if they do, but it's chaos and regret that I pull for every year in this willfully inferior college football system. And if Boise State beats Houston 62-10 in the Rose Bowl on January 7, we'll get both.

-JW

Tips and Picks: The Week 3 Edition

GM,

I hope you've saved all your yardwork for this Saturday. The NCAA is throwing us a collection of stinkers so miserable that I'm considering alternative programming. Really, these games are rotten to the core. Last night, we saw South Carolina upset Ole Miss, which I had predicted but didn't even profit from because Vegas also smelled a rat and didn't offer decent odds. How often does a No. 4 team visit an unranked team and only give 4.5 points?! I've now gone from ripping Jevan Snead to feeling sorry for him. At this rate, he won't get drafted.

Only one of this week's games--Miami at Virginia Tech--pairs two top-25 teams. This makes gambling difficult, perhaps even less fun, but what's a boy to do?

No. 9 Miami (-3) at No. 11 Virginia Tech:

Again, the oddsmakers tend to agree with me about Miami's ability. How could the home team not be favored in this one?! On the other hand, the Hurricanes have been playing great football, and Jacory Harris made me a believer in that convincing win over Georgia Tech. I loved this Miami team on Monday, so I have to love them today. Take the 'Canes to cover.

Texas Tech (+1) at No. 17 Houston; Over-under is 73.5:

Easily billed (by me) as the second-most entertaining game this week, this is Houston's chance to prove it's for real. With an almost-even line, an over-under of 73.5, a potential BCS buster on the field, and a 9:15 kickoff, you must find some action on this one. With the late start in mind, plan to turn to your drunkest buddy and tell him you want the over at 60. It might work. You can't tell anything from watching highlights of these two teams. The defenses look terrible, and the offense looks unchallenged. If you're not brave enough to take the over, go with the Red Raiders. Houston only has two more challenges on its way to what I now hope will be a national title game against Boise State. The other is Mississippi State. I say the exposure comes now.

Notre Dame (-7) at Purdue:

Take Purdue to win outright. I give it a 40-percent chance, and you'll get 2.25 times your investment if it does. Now that's value!

Arizona State (+11.5) at No. 21 Georgia; Over-under is 50.5:

I'll be at this one, and I have no idea why they put the over-under so low. UGA is averaging 34 a game and allowing the same number ("amount" for the less educated). Like all Pac 10 teams in recent memory, the Sun Devils can put up some points and allow some. With student bodies that consistently rank in the top 10 for girls and partying, neither school has time for wrapping up, getting off blocks, or batting down passes. Take the over, and take it with as much "confidence" as your wallet will allow.

-JW

JW,

If you had asked me during the fourth quarter of last night's Ole Miss-South Carolina game whether or not the Rebels would shed their 13-point deficit for a last-minute win, my answer would have been an enthusiastic yes. As in, mortgage-the-house yes. Visit-the-pawnshop yes. Dexter McCluster couldn't be stopped, Jevan Snead had taken his rightful place in the Jonathan Crompton School of Sucking Too Badly to Risk a Pass, and Stephen Garcia looked about as competent as a freshman walk-on. At a junior college. With no football team. Clearly, Sports Illustrated knew what they were doing when they released this beauty. It takes a truly special team to blow a game that winnable.

Which is not to say, mind you, that Ole Miss didn't deserve the loss. It's just that I can't remember the last time a team rose so high on so little. Fans used to college football's incestuous seasoning of regular season rankings with preseason expectations have seen scores of lesser examples (Georgia in 2008; USC in every year since its founding), but something about the Rebels' 2009 hype was particularly ridiculous. This was the 4th best team in the country? Given Snead's numbers and bizarre interaction with Houston Nutt during drives (repeatedly yelling at his coaches to "speed things up," according to reports), last night's Rebs would have been hard pressed to be the 40th best. The fact that I expected them to pull out the win anyway is proof only that South Carolina isn't quite ready to win those games. Not that Ole Miss is.

As we look ahead to this weekend's NFL action, then, I suggest we keep in mind whatever lessons we can draw from the Rebels' misfortune, and the most important among them is this. An overhyped team that's beaten nobody is always susceptible to an underdog that's moving in the right direction. And yes, Minnesota, I'm talking to you. Bank on it.

-GM

United in Stupidity

JW,

A student of mine whose obsession with Taylor Swift is such that she refers only to "Taylor" recently provided an illustration that Barack Obama and his acolytes in Washington and New York might find useful: "I would never hound Taylor for an autograph," the student wrote of her trip backstage at one of Swift's concerts. "All I want is to talk to her and get a picture."

Happily, lessons in self-awareness are never more timely than on the occasion of a presidential address to the United Nations General Assembly. As expected, President Obama's first such remarks, delivered this morning, were filled with the kind of anti-George Bush rhetoric liberals sometimes use to disguise their lack of intelligent proposals, and bursting at other times with calls for peace so hopeful they make one wonder if Obama has ever read a newspaper.

Consider, for example, the president's comments on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

"As we pursue [a two-state solution], we will also pursue peace between Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Syria, and a broader peace between Israel and its many neighbors. In pursuit of that goal, we will develop regional initiatives with multilateral participation, alongside bilateral negotiations."

Nonsense. Offensive nonsense to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of history. And even though Obama has to say such things, one wonders (particularly after his World Messiah Tour) if he knows enough to see through them. If he's aware of the limits of his ability to persuade.

If he isn't, perhaps he should have stayed for Muammar Qaddafi's speech, which suggested, among other things, that swine flu was created as a military weapon, that Israel was responsible for the JFK assassination, and that Israel and Palestine should be combined into a single state, Israteen. Like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Qaddafi's a perfect example of the problem with bilateralism. The guy on the lateral side of the table is usually a dick.

Here's my question as I conclude. In a world of nonalcoholic beer and I-Pods that shoot video, is the United Nations still the dumbest idea ever conceived?

-GM

GM,

You really shouldn't get so worked up about the World Messiah Tour. It's a simple game of positioning, a concept that any marketing specialist is familiar with. And our president--or at least his handlers--truly excels in it.

General Perception: George W. Bush = Bad

General Conclusion: Not Bush = Better Than Bad

Wise Position: Not Bush

Half of Obama's campaign theme was "change," and you know exactly why it worked. It was so effective, in fact, that John McCain tried to steal it just weeks before the election. It's a simple message for a simple audience--even worldwide. "You don't like George Bush? I'm not him. How do you like me?" Of course, as thinkers, you and I realize that the realm of "not George Bush" could be anything from FDR to Nero. It could work out, but it doesn't have to.

Let's face it. Even conservatives have to admit that our relationships with some countries, perhaps Russia in this case, may improve immediately if we just send somebody over there besides Bush.Worthless as an organization or not, the United Nations would like to see a fresh American face as well, and Obama's will do. The UN as an idea may be bad, but it's even worse in practice. Why? Perhaps because, as much as liberals want to accuse this country of being overly religious and backwards, the rest of the world has us beaten in both categories.

-JW

Indy Outscores Miami's Football IQ, 27-23

GM,

If we fired every coach who made terrible late-game decisions and released every quarterback who didn't understand clock management, we would only have the New England Patriots, Peyton Manning, and a few high school teams left to watch. I had no idea that my team would be such an offender, though. Down 27-23 last night, the Miami Dolphins got the ball with 3:18 left on the clock, and they ran out of time at the Indianapolis 30!!! They ran out of time! Three minutes, 18 seconds, two timeouts, and one two-minute warning... and Tony Sparano called plays like it was Miami's lead to protect. Even the South Florida crowd began booing after the first play, when Ronnie Brown ran for a yard and Chad Pennington let the play clock run down all the way before taking a timeout. Ronnie ran it again the next play, and the Dolphins failed to snap it again before the two-minute warning. Mike Tirico, who only gives analysis when it is blatantly obvious, said, "This is the slowest two-minute offense I've ever seen."

I was so flabbergasted by this display of incompetence that I did a little research. Turns out there were 70 touchdown drives in the NFL this week. The average time for a touchdown-scoring drive was 3:03. That was the average. That was the (bleeping) average! With three clock stoppages and 15 more seconds than the average, Miami ran out of time!!! Sparano, you deserve to be fired, but the next guy would do the same thing. Chad, I thought you knew better.

What pains me even more is that coaches rarely take any flack for terrible decisions. The reason is because the sports media are mostly the guys who got picked last for dodgeball and yearn to be athletes themselves. When a coach makes a joke at the expense of a reporter, the other reporters usually laugh with the coach. Rubbish! The media need to be my voice in press conferences; I want some scrutiny.

"Coach, why'd you punt from the opponent's 35-yard line on 4th-and-2 with 1:29 left when you were down three?"

"Coach, why'd you save that last timeout for offense after you had stopped them on third down? That cost you 40 seconds!"

"Coach (Dirk) Koetter (of the 2006 Arizona State team), why'd you punt the ball to USC on fourth down when you were down a touchdown and all the Trojans had to do was take three knees to run out the clock?"

These guys get paid a lot of money to do what they do. I can tolerate losing out to other guys who get paid a lot. I refuse to tolerate losing out to stupidity. Miami found a way to get beaten by the clock.

-JW

JW,

If only for comedy's sake, I'd have paid good money to hear Bill Parcells' fuming in last night's press box. He already had every sports columnist in America complaining that last season's turnaround was a fluky-schedule fraud. Once Tony Sparano morphed into this season's Andy Reid (minus the occassional winning), all bets were off. What's a Tuna to do?

Joking aside, I understand Sparano's thinking completely. Perhaps even more than he wanted the win, he wanted to keep the ball out the absurdly clutch-in-the-regular-season hands of Peyton Manning. Sparano knew that he had one chance to win that game: scoring a touchdown as the game clock wound down to zero. Otherwise, Manning was going to march down the field unhindered. His previous touchdown drive, let's not forget, took all of 32 seconds.

If last night's game taught us anything, it was a reinforcement of the following lesson: Cheering against Manning in the regular season is one of the most miserable experiences a fan can have. Take a look at his stats! 8 of 16 in quarters one through three; 6 of 7 in quarter four. Like Roethlisberger, Manning lulls you into thinking he stinks, only to rip your heart out the minute you start believing in an upset. Savvy fans take advantage of this fact, loading up on the Colts whenever they're giving three or fewer. Slightly less savvy fans (like me) make the mistake of parlaying the Colts with things like "yes" on "Will anyone miss the NBA's refs?". A sucker bet if ever there was one.

If it's any consolation, Miami's players will have the option come January of changing the channel when Peyton Manning loses in the first round of the playofffs. I think we both know they'll be watching from home.

-GM