So I'm back talking to myself about sports, which tells me that I have been watching the playoffs, the Lakers, after all. I didn't see much of the first round, where Oklahoma tested them as I expected, but they rose to the occasion. I saw more of the four game sweep of the Jazz, and enough of one game won by the Phoenix Suns--their next opponent--to think this is going to be a tougher series.

In some ways the Jazz series prepared them--they have taller guys inside than the Suns as they did the Jazz, and the Suns also run the pick and roll a lot. The difference could be the bench, because the Suns' bench was really strong in their series, and the Lakers' not so much. But Phil Jackson did hit on something of a winning formula by mixing bench players with starters when he wanted to rest other starters. But the Lakers are playing with intensity and without much of the lackadaisical approach that left a sour taste to the season, and Kobe is quietly coming back to his usual form. They're more entertaining than I'd feared.

While the Lakers can't look past the Suns to the East(ern teams), I can. The big surprise is how vulnerable Cleveland is in their series with Boston. Right now they're down 3-2 with a very bad loss at home--the New York Times reported there was a lot of booing of the team and specifically of King James. If that was his last game in Cleveland this season, it's probably his last game in Cleveland as a member of that city's team. But depending on his elbow and general health, he could have a big enough game tomorrow to even the series, and then it's back to Cleveland, so you can't quite count them out yet. Still...even if they win, they look pretty vulnerable to Orlando, which is dominating. It could well be a Lakers-Orlando rematch for the Finals.

Something Fishy in This Tea

The other night on Rachel Maddow, Gov. Ed Rendell of PA made an important point about media coverage of the Tea Party:

"...the conservatives have won this argument and they‘ve certainly won it over the last 16, 17 months—in the fact that the tea party gets tremendous—the tea parties get tremendous coverage. And think about it—week before the health care vote, they had a rally in Washington, got 1,000 people, maybe not even that. The tax day rally, the big rally to protest federal taxes got less than 1,500 people showing up, according to their own organizer. Other people thought it was in the 400 or 500 range.

Gosh, if I had a rally in Washington to have stronger laws to protect puppies, we‘d have 100,000 people without blinking. And yet, the media, including the so-called liberal and progressive media, have given the tea party-ites elevation in terms of the impact they‘re having on the national debate and discussion—way above what they deserve."

Earlier in the program, Rachel highlighted some other rallies, involving thousands of people protesting cuts in government services. Rendell added that it would be hard to find any coverage of those, let alone the kind of major coverage the Tea Partiers get.

It's even worse than that. There have been several major demos in Washington which involved many times the numbers the T.P.s get, that were completely ignored.

This Sunday there's going to be a major Earth Day event in Washington. There will be stars like Sting singing, so that part will probably pop up on the cable stations. But will it be taken seriously politically? As a statement about national and international priorities? Especially when there's this report that the climate and energy bill is going to drop off the Democrat's agenda.

On the other hand, if this report is true, and the Senate "bill would remove the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, and the states’ authority to set tougher emissions standards than the federal government," then it isn't a bill worth passing.

If this event falls flat, it's partly the fault of enviro groups, who have kept this event a virtual secret, except for the Earth Day committee that is running it. And part of it is the familiarity--nobody is really wondering, what are these people so angry about? But a lot of it is the media refusing to cover anything that is politically to the left of the Tea Party in a politically significant way. We'll see what they do with this event on Sunday.

Not on any NFL draft board, this running back a few years out of Harvard may not look impressive, but has a record of winning. Known mostly as a hoopster with questionable skills in bowling and baseball, he sees the whole field, follows his blocking, and can make quick adjustments that confound opponents. A leader, with even temperament but a fighting spirit, tenacious and focused, he also doesn't get in trouble with off the field bad behavior. A smart team could go far with him, if it understands what it's got.

Not Worried

I'm worried about a lot, like the future of civilization, President Obama going to West Virginia, paying the dentist. But I am not worried about the 2010 elections. Democrats will do fine.

It's not even May. Absent big surprises--and we do get those--this is apt to be the GOPers high point. The U.S. economy is improving, and unless stuff like the volcano in Iceland force the global economy into the tank, it will be better in the fall. Recovery Act funding of visible projects was backloaded--they'll be kicking in by the fall.


The last U.S. combat soldier could well be switching out the lights behind him in Iraq by summer's end. Afghanistan may even be winding down by fall.

The Rabid Right is dangerous in various ways, but not so much in major elections across the country. The Tea Party is hot media air, not enough to sway elections when other voters are paying attention (says E.J. Dionne, among others.) There are already signs that, contra opinion polls, being against health care is not going to be rewarded by voters--especially independents.

And in case anybody has forgotten 2008, we've got a pretty good campaigner now in the White House. Check out this speech for Barbara Boxer and see if President Obama isn't already sounding resonant themes.

The Democrats will likely lose some seats, especially where they have not very good candidates, and there is enough craziness out there to take away some others. But just as the death of the Republican party announced last year by the media bobbleheads proved a little premature, so today's doom and gloom over Democrats is out of proportion. Dems have a lot of work to do just to stay pretty even, but it's doable. And things for them might look a lot better by fall.

No Win Situations

Update: This devastating piece in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.

Sportswise, I am not a happy camper, and it doesn't look like I'm going to be one for a long time. The NBA playoffs are beginning, and what was supposed to be a title defense by a dominant Lakers team is starting to look like a slow motion train wreck. Although with all their injuries and fatigue, and the terrible play lately that has given the rest of the league multiple ways to beat them, they may not even get out of the first round. It's that bad. Even if they win against a younger, faster Oklahoma team with a dynamic superstar in the making, it's going to be a struggle and they're likely to look lousy doing it. And even if they struggle all the way through seven game playoff series, they're not likely to beat Cleveland for the championship, if it comes down to that, and it probably will.

But the Lakers prospects are nothing compared to the shocking situation of the Steelers. The last time Steeler Nation rejoiced, it was the touchdown pass from Big Ben to Santonio Holmes that won the Super Bowl. Now the Steelers have practically given away their best receiver because of one off-the-field screwup too many, and their star quarterback is getting a reputation as a star jerk, at best.

Ben's birthday (subject of a post here, I note with some chagrin) was celebrated with some apparently unsavory activity that led to an accusation of rape. Celebrity sports figures are easy targets for false accusations--some Steelers stars have been victimized that way, including (if memory serves) Jerome Betis, and Ben had a pretty good reputation. So I kept quiet until the police investigation was over. Now Ben was not charged, but he's hardly been exonerated of bad behavior. Steeler Nation is not happy with him.

How all this winds up--fall, redemption, whatever--it's going to be messy, and it ain't going to be football. If the Steelers don't trade him (unlikely they will, but possible), he faces suspension in the next few weeks--at first the bet was for a game or two to start the season, but now it may be more. With two stars returning from injury, the Steelers' defense was looking to resume its dominance, and acquisitions and signings suggested that the offense would be somewhat different, but better. Now next season looks like a bust already. The better teams in the division strengthened themselves--in fact, a lot of teams outside Philadelphia strengthened themselves in the off-season. So the Steelers can't afford to lose their star quarterback for four or more games and expect to compete. It looks like another year without a playoff run.

Maybe the Steelers will rise above it all and it will be exciting, and/or the Lakers will return to their dominant form of earlier this season, but neither is likely anymore, and in any case, the road maybe too painful to watch, at least for me and my relatively low tolerance for that kind of drama in something I know I shouldn't be wasting time on. They are all going to be multi-millionaires without me.

The bottom line is that I'm going to have to come up with another way to waste my time. Besides blogging.

The morning after the April 15 Tea Party, a few facts:

Percentage of Americans whose federal taxes are lower this year: 98

Number of years out of the eight years GW Bush was President that taxes for most Americans were higher than now: 8

The Stealth Public Option?

A Kos diarist examining a Kaiser Foundation summary of the health insurance reform law found a provision concerning the health insurance Exchanges that will "Require the Office of Personnel Management to contract with insurers to offer at least two multi-state plans in each Exchange. At least one plan must be offered by a non-profit entity." The "non-profit entity" suggests a kind of stealth public option, though some of the big players--and current abusers--are technically non-profits. However, it probably further ensures that the individual mandate challenge won't be found unconstitutional, if it doesn't require that citizens buy a product from a profit-making company.

Another Kos poster points to several provisions that encourage insurers and the health care system generally to lower costs, and makes health care more affordable.

At the same time, the fact that GOPers smell the possibility of gains in November, plus the one-party vote that passed the bill, is obviously encouraging a continuing opposition by means of lies and extreme rhetoric, and probably emboldens insurance companies to do what they can to subvert the law.

On the other hand, the first congressional electoral test--in which a GOPer tried to inflame and incite Florida seniors on the law, as well as generally insulting the President--didn't work: the Democrat who was supposed to win, did win, with more than 60% of the vote.

The Legal Challenge to Healthcare Reform

There are a number of challenges by politically motivated attorneys-general and governors, playing to larger reactionary forces. None of them have legal merit, let alone real Constitutional challenge. However, the "individual mandate" provision has always been troublesome. If it is the federal government directing every citizen to buy the product sold by a private sector corporation, absent a public option, then it is unprecedented. The closest to it would be state governments requiring automobile insurance, but that is for people who own cars, and citizens are not required to own cars, so they have some choice.

However, this is not how the so-called individual mandate provision was written. As explained by Lawrence O'Donnell, whose expertise is precisely in the area of financial regulations in Congressional legislation, what the mandate basically says is that if you don't buy health insurance, you won't get the tax break that people who do buy the insurance will get. That is clearly within the law and within accepted practice.

Moreover, the IRS will not investigate compliance, but respond to what is on the tax return. I imagine if non-compliance arises in a tax audit, that might be a different story. The IRS has denied the latest Rabid Right scare story, that it is hiring thousands of new agents to monitor compliance.

I still think that an option to buy public plan insurance from the government would more definitively solve this troublesome problem of people feeling they must buy insurance from the same corporate entities who inflate prices, cut coverage whenever possible, and use their money to influence politicians and advertise to drive out competition. But given the compromises in this bill overall, this is an acceptable price at this time for the reforms it includes.

Although I have to admit I say that knowing that it will never apply to me. I look forward to Medicare.

Update: Here's a more detailed explanation of both the insidious Rabid Right lies about this, and the facts.

UConnection

Lesson for the Day: What do you do after you've had the worst first half of the year?

You go get the best second half of the year.

Thanks, UConn and congrats on being NCAA women hoops champs, with your second undefeated season in a row.

April Madness

I spent hours of my weekend watching parts of four Final Four basketball games, so I may as well waste more time noting this fact. Although Butler is a great story, and the Butler v. Duke is the David and Goliath that has the media salivating--if only they had a week to drive it into the ground!--I must admit I enjoy watching the women's games more.

It's partly because their game is a purer style of basketball. But men's college hoops has become a tryout league for the NBA. You have a great freshman season, you're drafted. The same sort of sense of entitlement and egotism you see in the pros is infecting college. The stakes aren't as great for the women yet--the WNBA doesn't pay nearly as much, and fewer college players are likely to have pro careers. So they are playing for the now, and it shows.

The greatest players of any era show you what you've never seen before. LeBron James is doing that now in the NBA. But the Connecticut women are showing it in their NCAA tournament--they've won 74 (or something like that) games in a row, and until Sunday had defeated their opponents by 40 to 50 points. Sunday, the Oklahoma team gave them a real if brief scare at the start of the second half, but UConn took control in pretty short order. They play Stanford for the championship Tuesday, and that's the game I'm most looking forward to watching.

Guess who came to dinner? President Obama's surprise visit to U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Another Major Accomplishment

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton announced a new U.S.-Russia treaty to reduce each country's nuclear weapons by nearly a third.

According to the President: "Broadly speaking, the new START treaty makes progress in several areas. It cuts -- by about a third -- the nuclear weapons that the United States and Russia will deploy. It significantly reduces missiles and launchers. It puts in place a strong and effective verification regime. And it maintains the flexibility that we need to protect and advance our national security, and to guarantee our unwavering commitment to the security of our allies."

With this agreement, the United States and Russia -- the two largest nuclear powers in the world -- also send a clear signal that we intend to lead. By upholding our own commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we strengthen our global efforts to stop the spread of these weapons, and to ensure that other nations meet their own responsibilities."

I can't help recalling that President Kennedy made two of his most important speeches--on the nuclear test ban treaty, the very first effort to stop the nuclear arms race--and on Civil Rights, that proposed what eventually became the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts--one day after the other. This immense and important accomplishment days after the health insurance reform law makes for a similarly momentous week for President Obama.

Happy 70th birthday to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House. Maybe I'm showing my age as well as my politics, but I think she's hot.

One of those Hell Freezes Over moments, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gives President Obama a big hug, congratulating him for the passage of the health insurance reform bill. But props to her: she fought this fight in the early 90s as First Lady, and she came closer than anyone to pulling it off--until now.

UPDATE 3/24: TPM runs this photo with a story about how the Clintons worked behind the scenes to get health insurance reform passed. Interesting.

Also, there's this interesting observation from David Leonhardt at the New York Times:"For all the political and economic uncertainties about health reform, at least one thing seems clear: The bill that President Obama signed on Tuesday is the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago."

Yes, We Did

The dimensions of the healthcare bill victory--and the dimensions of the defeat for Republicans--is just starting to be felt and evaluated. But this E. J. Dionne column is a good start:

Yes, we did.

Finally, President Obama can use those words. The passage of health-care reform provided the first piece of incontestable evidence that Washington has changed.

Congress is, indeed, capable of carrying through fundamental social reform. No longer will the United States be the outlier among wealthy nations in leaving so many of its citizens without basic health coverage.

In approving the most sweeping piece of social legislation since the mid-1960s, Democrats proved that they can govern, even under challenging circumstances and in the face of significant internal divisions. "

Uglier in Our Time

With the top racial slur hurled at a Civil Rights hero and Representative, an anti-gay slur and many threats of violence, the latest Tea Party rally in Washington set a new low in ugliness, hated and incitement.

Here's one report, here's another. Clearly the health insurance reform vote tomorrow is driving the frenzy, but I've given up believing this sort of thing will die down anytime soon. It's uglier, but probably not the ugliest. What remains most alarming is the feedback system that is feeding this frenzy--the hate radio stars whipping up their listeners, the empowered bigots pushing every limit, and the connivance of GOPers in Congress, who are hitching their sinking wagons to this dark star. The question being whether this all ends in self-destruction before it destroys a lot more.

Just a bunch of parents at a school basketball game, rooting for their daughters. It just happens to include the President, the First Lady, the Vice President and his wife. Something heartening about this.

And the 2010 Nader Award goes to...Dennis Kucinich, who announced that he will vote against the healthcare reform bill because it's not good enough for him. If he is the deciding vote against it, he will go down in infamy along with another erstwhile force for good who let ego, image and ideological purity ruin his name forever, when he made the decisive difference in wrecking a decade and perhaps the future, Ralph Nader in 2000. Kucinich's purity will be intact, while those who will suffer and perhaps die because they can't get care due to lack of affordable insurance or who are denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition as defined by insurance companies--well, purity has its cost, as long as you don't personally have to pay it. And as long as you ignore the bill's many progressive elements.

Update: After President Obama held an enthusiastic rally in Kucinich's district, and had a one-on-one with him, Dennis the K changed his mind and his vote, and began to lobby strenuously for the President's bill with his fellow Members. Good for him.

On Thursday, college students throughout California especially, but also around the U.S., protested higher tuitions and costs, and cuts in their education that are sending many institutions of higher education into crisis--including Humboldt State University here in Arcata. So it's not surprising that at least here in the Eureka demo, students were joined by faculty and staff, as departments and entire programs are being weakened and eliminated.

The politics of this is fascinating, and educational. Universities and their students are being characterized as fighting for funds that would otherwise go to the poor and sick, whereas the real priorities being served are wealthy non-taxpayers, mega-corporations and the banks, that are currently mounting a so far successful effort to prevent the U.S. Senate from passing into law what the House has already passed--reforms that would strip the banks of their profitable control of student loans, and would ease the financial burden of students and their schools.

Here's the SF Chronicle story from which this photo comes, and another at the L.A. Times. Neither talks much about the underlying issues. No one much does.

Update: We'll see if this really happens, but at the moment, the legislation to take back control of student loans from the banks is part of the Senate healthcare bill, so if it passes Sunday, this will be law as well.

Happy birthday, Big Ben. Michael Wilmont on PTI said that if he had to pick one quarterback to play a game for his (Wilmont's) life, he would pick Big Ben R. How about that?

How Big Is It? With Update

It's not a Leno (really, a Carson) joke line--it's a question with profound implications for the United States at this delicate moment in human history.

How big is the group of American voters who support the the reactionary-beyond-belief politics, the violently angry far far right?

We know how loud they are. We know that their most extreme views are increasingly embraced by Republican office-holders and aspirants, right up to the leadership in the U.S. Senate.

The latest manifestation is Senator Jim Bunning's ongoing filibuster which is holding up extension of unemployment benefits, affecting millions. As well as other projects that affect the poor and working people. Here's TIME's Joe Klein today:

As this comment from the Number 2 Senate Republican, Jon Kyl of Arizona, makes clear, the Republicans are turning toward a form of reactionary radicalism that is well to the right not only of traditional conservatism, but also of post-Victorian concepts of government and--not to put too fine a point on it--of common decency as well:

Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Republican whip, argued that unemployment benefits dissuade people from job-hunting "because people are being paid even though they're not working." Unemployment insurance "doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work,"

The idea that those who have lost their jobs in this Wall Street/mortgage-scam recession are simply deadbeats, choosing to stay on unemployment rather than look for work, seems more appropriate to Scrooge's London than the 21st century. But Kyl has spoken his version of the truth, and we should be grateful for that: this is what the Republican Party is now all about. The America they--and the Tea Partiers--want would have no Medicare or Medicaid or Social Security (just ask the rising Republican star, Paul Ryan, who would privatize them all), no social safety net, no environmental or workplace regulations, no highway or infrastructure building."

Before this spectacle, there was another, that Frank Rich wrote about over the weekend: the sudden embracing by right wing media mouths and politicians of the guy who flew his plane into a building containing IRS offices, calling him a hero. Referring to Times reporter David Barstow's investigation into the Tea Party movement, Rich writes:

Barstow confirmed what the Southern Poverty Law Center had found in its report last year: the unhinged and sometimes armed anti-government right that was thought to have vaporized after its Oklahoma apotheosis is making a comeback. And now it is finding common cause with some elements of the diverse, far-flung and still inchoate Tea Party movement. All it takes is a few self-styled “patriots” to sow havoc.

While Rich cautions that the Tea Partiers and the Republican officeholders have little in common, the officeholders are falling all over themselves to adopt extremist--and violent--rhetoric.

I've seen a lot of explanations of this "anger," not many of them very convincing. The latest is Michael Lind in Salon, who says that the movement is the last cry of a declining demographic group, the white working class, and that groups in decline tend to want to obstruct the change that is overwhelming them and their world. That's more or less been my working theory (though the rest of Lind's piece makes pretty doubtful conclusions and offers impractical solutions.) What makes absolute sense is that there is a lot of racism involved, and not just black and white, but towards everyone who isn't white. President Obama is the obvious center of projection.

Those emotions are being exploited, fueled and guided with their usual subterranean skill, by reactionary corporate interests, while shameless GOPer politicians are all too obviously trying to ride the wave.

I get all that. I still don't know though how big it is. It's a declining minority (racist whites) of a declining soon-to-be minority (whites). But if you listen to Hardball or CNN, you get the impression that this unhinged anger at Obama and Washington is very big. CNN in particular is promoting the idea, citing its poll that claims that 56% of Americans believe the federal government threatens their freedom.

Here's what I do know: an awful lot is being deduced from one election in MA, which some folks up there think was due largely to state politics. And poll questions of such a general nature bring together people who are never going to actually vote the same way. There are lots of ways to interpret "broken government." Maybe it's Obama to some, maybe it's Republican obstructionism in the Senate to others.

I do think a certain unhinged quality, a mindless lashing out, a feeling of helplessness and general anger, is probably real, and rooted in fear. But all kinds of fear, by all kinds of people for all kinds of reasons.

How big is it? is in the end a political question, that elections will settle (without necessarily addressing the question directly.) It may be that Jim Bunning is leading the political equivalent of the Terry Shiavo moment, that was followed by hefty GOPer defeats. We just don't know yet. But if healthcare doesn't pass, this is going to grow.

But there's another important question: how dangerous is it? That doesn't always depend on size. Given the right circumstances, you'd have to say that right now: dangerous. Maybe very dangerous.

Update: The Southern Poverty Law Center issued a new report on Tuesday that quantified growth of right wing extremist groups--at 244% rise in the number of these groups in 2009.

O Canada! Congrats to Canada for the overtime win of their Olympic men's hockey team that won them the Gold over the Silver medalists, the U.S. Winning goal by Sidney Crosby, of the Stanley Cup champion Pittsburgh Penguins. (You know I had to get that in.)

Health of the Debate

The patient is resting uncomfortably, and the patience is wearing thin. And though opinions differ on the immediate effect of the the 7 hour healthcare session of members of Congress presided by the President, my reading of the reactions suggests that the President and the Democratic plan came out healthier, though the length of the process and the number of players probably diluted the kind of clear exposure of the GOPers bad faith, hypocrisy and game-playing that happened when President Obama met with House GOPers.

Still, even the New York Times' right-of-moderate columnist David Brooks--who appears not to favor the Obama plan--gave credit to the President. After admitting that the event was more meaningful than he expected, he wrote:

Most of the credit goes to President Obama. The man really knows how to lead a discussion. He stuck to specifics and tried to rein in people who were flying off into generalities. He picked out the core point in any comment. He tried to keep things going in a coherent direction. Moreover, he seemed to be trying to get a result. Republicans had their substantive criticism of the Democratic bills, but Obama kept pressing them for areas of agreement."

For other press/blog responses (with selections towards the positive) check the beginning of this blackwaterdog diary on Kos.

On substance, objective fact-checkers supported what President Obama said, and agreed that GOPers routinely distorted numbers and facts. So did Paul Krugman in his opinion piece, and then he pointed out:

What really struck me about the meeting, however, was the inability of Republicans to explain how they propose dealing with the issue that, rightly, is at the emotional center of much health care debate: the plight of Americans who suffer from pre-existing medical conditions. In other advanced countries, everyone gets essential care whatever their medical history. But in America, a bout of cancer, an inherited genetic disorder, or even, in some states, having been a victim of domestic violence can make you uninsurable, and thus make adequate health care unaffordable."

As for "the Republican plan," Krugman translates the findings of the Congressional Budget Office: But here’s the translation: While some people would gain insurance, the people losing insurance would be those who need it most. Under the Republican plan, the American health care system would become even more brutal than it is now."

Once again, the differences could not be more stark, and so you have to wonder what is really going on in the Zietgeist that makes these reforms controversial. On the face of it, there should be overwhelming public support, since the vast majority of Americans are paying exorbitant amounts for weak coverage that insurance companies can disappear at their whim, and are mostly paying for mega-corporations to establish monopolies through acquisitions and lobbying.

Against this, President Obama kept coming back to the stories of real people, who aren't among the income elite. And so did Rep. Louise Slaughter, one of those admirable public servants who voters have wisely sent back time and again, so she has institutional memory and can recite history that she has seen from the inside, like what happened with the Clinton attempts, and what the price has been for that failure in the 90s--especially in an area that no one talks much about, the economic burden on companies of health insurance, which has had a hand in making exporting products so expensive that they become uncompetitive--and so the American car manufacturing business was essentially disappeared to a large extent because of health care costs.

But Slaughter also told of a woman who was using her dead sister's dentures because she couldn't afford not to. How can this happen today in America? Slaughter asked, and that's the question that is answered by the Zeitgeist and what happens to this bill.

Krugman concludes:

So what did we learn from the summit? What I took away was the arrogance that the success of things like the death-panel smear has obviously engendered in Republican politicians. At this point they obviously believe that they can blandly make utterly misleading assertions, saying things that can be easily refuted, and pay no price. And they may well be right. But Democrats can have the last laugh. All they have to do — and they have the power to do it — is finish the job, and enact health reform. "

David Brooks doesn't think it will happen, and no one is predicting an easy road. Apparently a lot will depend on conservative Dems and whether they believe they have enough political cover, which depends in part on whether they sense the public is behind this. That's probably why the GOPers kept talking up polls which they claim say Americans aren't. We could talk about courage and doing the right thing. It's not unknown in Congress, though it's hardly the rule. But some sense of justice in health care probably will depend on it, and maybe it should.

More Like It

This is more like it, and more will like it. According to Robert Reich:

Astonishingly, the health insurance industry is exempt from federal antitrust laws, which is why a handful of insurers have become so dominant in their markets that their customers simply have nowhere else to go. But that protection could soon end: President Obama on Tuesday announced his support of a House bill that would repeal health insurers’ antitrust exemption, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi signaled that she would put it toward an immediate vote.

As Reich points out, this may well do more in one fell swoop than a lot of other more complicated reform proposals. Huge insurance companies specializing in health insurance have swallowed up so many of their previous competitors--all of them doing so using the premiums we've supposedly been paying for health insurance--that most Americans have no choice of health care insurance company.

The choice that the public option was to provide may yet be years away, if it ever happens, but subjecting this monoliths to anti-trust laws could be almost as effective--especially with consumer safeguards now proposed in the Obama reform bill.

Update: This legislation passed the House on Wednesday by a vote of 406-19. By according to TPM, its prospects in the Senate are "dim."

Riddle Me This: Why is it so hard to understand that when the government spends money, it results in jobs and economic activity? Today I read somewhere about how hard it is to get the concept across, whereas the concept of cutting taxes is easy. And I heard someone on CNN explain that the money in the federal budget going to earmarks spending isn't much, but "tell that to somebody who's unemployed." What? I think most unemployed people are smart enough to wonder if they can get a job financed by that earmark, let alone discretionary spending as a whole, and especially something like the Recovery Act. The government spends the money-- so somebody gets it. Maybe it's a government employee, who buys stuff that means others are employed, and/or who performs a necessary service for society and the economy, like teachers, or maybe the money is spent directly in the private sector, employing people! Building stuff! Maintaining, staffing stuff! Why is this such a difficult concept????????

The Recovery Act creates jobs--as even the Republicans who were against it know it does, and want those jobs for their districts.

Update: The CBO now says the Recovery Act has employed up to 2.1 million workers, and added up to 3 million workers to the economy, reducing the unemployment rate by more than a point.

How It All Doesn't Work

This column by Nicholas Kristof parodying health insurance chicanery is pretty funny, pretty sadly funny, especially because it is wickedly applicable to quite a lot of how business is "conducted" in private/public/every sector.

If you missed it, check it out.

Footnote to Copenhagen

Bill McKibben's report on the Copenhagen conference appears in the new New York Review of Books (March 11, 2010; not free online.) It's a masterful overview with excellent reportage, and fairly restrained in its tone and conclusions, that the weak outcome was the result of political heavyweights gambling with the future.

There was enough blame for everyone, in McKibben's view, including President Obama. The last hope for Copenhagen rested with him, but according to McKibben, "And almost from the moment Obama began to speak, it was clear that there would be no dramatic surprise agreement..." His proposals for the U.S. were weak, he writes, just as Hilary Clinton's offer of financial aid to the poorest countries likely to be most damaged by climate change were vague and inadequate by orders of magnitude. McKibben notes that Obama "helped negotiate" an accord, which "some inside-the-Beltway environmental leaders hailed [it] as a 'breakthrough' because it commited China to doing something..."

At the end of his report, McKibben points readers to the online NY Review blog, and another post on the Copenhagen accord by Tim Flannery. I found it, and it offers a different emphasis on Obama's participation, including an incident I didn't see reported elsewhere. Here are the graphs(I've added the boldface):

When he spoke afterward, President Obama was clearly both frustrated and surprised at the limited progress that had been made toward a resolution. Nor did things go terribly well after that. The key objective for Obama in his meeting with Premier Wen was to secure greater transparency on Chinese emissions targets, and Wen signaled his dissatisfaction by dispatching increasingly junior emissaries to meet with Obama.

Then, much to the annoyance of the Chinese delegation, Obama burst uninvited into a meeting between Wen, Manmohan Singh, Lula da Silva of Brazil, and South African President Jacob Zuma. It was at that meeting—in which no European leaders were present—that the final touches were put on the three-page document that would become known as the Copenhagen Accord. In this agreement, despite Chinese resistance, Obama could claim to have—in principle at least—achieved his key objective of obtaining greater international transparency and accountability for emissions reduction targets;"

This tells a different story. Obama may have had too restricted a goal, and domestic politics may have weighed too heavily at that moment, but it seems that he made damn sure he got something.

The Daily Trance

If following links along the Internet weren't bad enough in print, there's the truly addictive and zone-out inducing YouTube. I've just spent a couple of hours on what began as a simple search: curious to see what versions of "Kumbaya" might be preserved, in connection with a post I wrote on the subject at Daily Kos, expanded for my site, 60's Now. As I suspected nobody could really make much with that song, although Pete Seeger tried--as the crowd sang the melody he tried some lower register harmonies reminicent of black South African harmonies.

But through their fiendish links, I watched and listened to a couple of versions of "If I Had A Hammer," by the still incomparable Peter, Paul & Mary, and a great version by Pete Seeger with Arlo Guthrie (although he had little to do with it--it was the backup band and the backup singers that made it great.) And PPM singing "Blowing in the Wind" at a peace demo in Washington in 1971--I was there for some peace march that year, but I don't remember a podium and a program, although I do remember hearing them sing this song at the Civil Rights March on Washington in 1963--it was the highlight of the program for me (sorry, Dr. King--I was a white 16 year old.)

And then somehow I happened on Paul McCartney singing "Back in the USSR" in the USSR (Red Square) and some obscure Beatles performances and studio tapes....I know I shouldn't have even started, but I let my guard down because last night I found the 1948 Superman serial I don't remember ever seeing, and which I just read about in a new book about the Superman phenomenon. I did that for an hour, but that's all, I stopped. So this time I thought I could control it.

And now I'm wasting even more time writing about it! This is the Internet!!!

Speaking of which, there is this strange thing on Kos. There's an entire underground of "trusted users" who can carry on dialogues through the comments that no one else can see. This happened on my post--there are at least 17 comments hidden to, among others, me--the person whose post it is.
Surreal.

But I think I know what it's about. I posted this "diary" early Saturday evening, then went out for awhile. Just before I left I saw a comment that was no longer there when I got back. It was from somebody who felt threatened by young men "of color" in his neighborhood, hanging around his car. His opinion was that his Louisville Slugger was more useful than singing Kumbaya. So my guess is there was or is a discussion about the appropriateness of this comment.

Well, gotta go--check my spam filter, run a couple of virus programs--one of which purports to erase at least 13 viruses a day. And if you care to comment here--though no one does--it won't appear right away, because my comments have been spammed (I know because the comments are in Chinese) and I have to approve them before they appear. When I get the time. Off of YouTube. Fortunately, I don't much care for today's TV shows on Hulu. I don't think.

The Daily Scan

My daily scan of Internet sites has changed over the past year or so, since the election and Inauguration. I had a list of news and political gossip sites I hit one after the other obsessively during the campaign. I know I wasn't alone in that because the habit was satirized in Doonesbury.

But some sites were slow to make the transition between political gossip and news applicable to governing, which I thought was the point of winning the election. Without the frenzied need for every scrap of electoral info, no matter how dubious, I could afford to dump other sites that always had a questionable political pov, and as I watched the identity of other sites either come clearer or change (notably the Huffington Post), I eliminated them as well.

So off my list entirely are: Politico, Huffington Post, Firedog Lake, the Field and some others I don't even remember. I consult the NY Times and Time Magazine blogs much less frequently, the Boston Globe's and Sf Chronicle's hardly at all, Andrew Sullivan every few days, 538 maybe once a week. I have gone back to NBC's First Read recently, hungry for something a bit more than squibs.

I still start with Political Wire, and the only one I consult more often than I used to is TPM. I check in with Kos, and if I still have an appetite, I check Think Progress. Climate Progress is also in my daily scan, and I've got a start page of selected headline links, with a number of enviro sites on it, which I go to according to the story. I have another list of non-political sites I visit pretty much everyday as well, which includes Bruce Sterling's blog at Wired, but also the Post Gazette Steelers page, and the LA Times Lakers.

I've included one special site on my start page list of headlines, just to keep something of a reality check. Because the news is often so outrageous that these headlines fit in...almost. For example:

Obama's Embarrassing Ska Album Resurfaces
Tiger Woods Announces Return to Sex

These gotchas are from The Onion, and are hilarious once you realize that they aren't real after all. I don't think.

Despite attempted political blackmail by a "childish" China (D.L.'s word), President Obama met with the Dalai Lama in the White House on Thursday. Reuters: "Raising issues that quickly stoked China's ire, Obama used his first presidential meeting with the Dalai Lama to press Beijing, under international criticism for its Tibet policies, to preserve Tibetan identity and respect human rights there."

President Obama also went to Denver Thursday in support of Democratic Senator Michael Bennet, sounding like candidate Obama. If you've missed those days, check out this transcript--it's still happening. But with the benefit of experience: "Look, something you got to understand — for those who don't believe in government, those who don't believe that we have obligations to each other, it's a lot easier task. If you can gum up the works, if you make things broken, if the Senate doesn't get anything done, well, that's consistent with their philosophy. It's a whole lot easier to say no to everything. It's a whole lot easier to blame somebody else. That politics that feeds on peoples' insecurities, especially during tough political times — that's the easiest kind of politics."

So what's the solution? "And so Michael is running in a very tough environment, but he's got one very powerful advantage. He's got you. (Applause.) He's been fighting for each and every one of you in Washington. He needs you to fight for him now."

This is Why Popular Opposition to Healthcare Reform Never Made Sense

I can understand why health insurers don't want reform. They don't want to be forced to like actually insure anything, which involves paying out money as well as raking it in. They seem to regard premiums as poker chips to use in their acquisitions games. The only folks they don't resent paying are lobbyists.

But how can ordinary premium-paying people, let alone businesses dying under the weight of premiums, possibly be against reform? When those premiums continue to cost more money, take an outrageous proportion of income, while insurers do their damndest to pay as little as possible, and let the patients die where they may.

Then along comes the company that used to call itself California Blue Cross when I was paying them, and now is Anthem Blue Cross. Excuse me if I don't stand at attention and pledge allegiance. They announced a 39% rate hike for individuals, effective in March. Not all that different really from what they had been doing, though maybe more incrementally. They raised their rates by about the same percentage last year. I can't even imagine what it is now. They priced me out years ago.

However, this time there's a storm abrewing. Like JFK jumping on steel price hikes, and surprising the hell out of the steel magnates, the Obama administration is jumping all over this one, demanding justification, holding congressional hearings. Blue Cross has responded in its typical shrewd way--they've humbly agreed to recind the increase. Until May, presumably when the kerfluffle is over and people are paying attention to something new.

Meanwhile, AP reports that individual premiums are going up by at least 15% in four states. A family of four in Maine can expect to pay $22,500 a year in premiums (which if memory serves, was the yearly salary for a member of Congress in 1960.) And this is just the beginning of the latest wave:
"You're going to see rate increases of 20, 25, 30 percent" for individual health policies in the near term, Sandy Praeger, chairwoman of the health insurance and managed care committee for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, predicted Friday.

All of this should help a health insurance reform law get passed, but I'm not holding my breath. Because that would only make sense. And nothing about politics makes sense anymore.

People die because they aren't insured or otherwise are denied care. I may yet become one of them, and I long ago accepted that possibility. I'm not too surprised anymore that people could let this happen. But why people who are paying these horrendous premiums aren't demanding reform, is more of a mystery. Could it be that racism trumps all? I mean, is it just because it's being proposed by a black President? Or what?

Still Early, But...

We turn from sports to the sporting news on the 2010 congressional elections. About a year ago, the media drone was about the deep hole GOPers were digging for themselves after devastating election losses in 2008. This year the drone is about how Democrats are facing disaster, even loss of both houses. Which tells you, first of all that the media drones a lot and amplifies and inflates the same message, and second, that things change.

But given the endless campaign I suppose it's getting to be time to get serious about November. You'd have to think that there are several factors at work. One is the number and identity of incumbents "retiring." Right now, for all the publicity some Dems have gotten (including Patrick Kennedy in Rhode Island today), there are still more GOPers retiring than Dems. Which are from safe districts is another question, and the last time I looked, Nate Silver was suggesting a net loss for Dems.

Two is the quality of candidates, and neither side has a lot going for it. Those are the structural considerations.

In terms of political issues, there is of course the economy. At the moment, things are looking up. The unemployment rate dropped a little, jobless claims just dropped considerably, and today it was announced that retail sales are up. Plus, a new poll shows that voters still blame the Bushies (31%) and not Obama (7%) for the crappy economy.

If there is noticeable recovery by the time voters start paying attention to the election, the Dems won't be hurt. If the Dems have passed health care and a jobs bill, they will quell the current state of grumbling among Dem voters.

But the wild card is the extent of voter anger at all incumbents, which is partly because of the perceived inability of Congress to get anything done (not entirely true, especially comparatively), partly to generalized fear which verges on the apocalyptic, partly to the spoiled "independence" of voters who want instant solutions and fall for the latest new face.

How strong will the "throw the bums out" sentiment be come November? We won't really know until the day after the election. It's been a big factor in recent elections but hasn't yet dominated. It's certainly an understandable feeling, but it usually leads to stupid choices. It's so easy to exploit. And with more corporate money likely to be in play, we could see a lot more new faces--promising to solve problems and cut taxes-- sold like beer.

Don't Give Up

Here is a potent article about President Obama's influence on children, particularly black children. For instance, some DC schoolkids:

They say they saw Obama's taped speech to students. Jean felt that he was speaking to the kids directly. Like he understood them. Like no other president. Like he cared about them: "He said, 'Don't give up.' "

One kid is inspired to run for school office, and he wins.

A few weeks later, Khalil wins the school election. During his acceptance speech, he tells his classmates: "Just because I'm president doesn't mean that I can change everything, such as changing the water fountains to soda fountains, but we can try to find ways to have more after-school clubs and sports teams. I will do my best."

Sounds like he's been listening to President Obama more recently.

But the most potent message seems to be the first one:

Jean watched Obama's education speech in September. And those words stayed with her. "At times, I was really stressed out" about school, she says. "I would want to leave school badly. Then it did hit me. He said, 'Don't give up.' It was in my head after hearing the speech."

By the way, this was the speech that the Rabid Right tried to stop, because the President was going to indoctrinate children.

The Saints Go Marching In! The most exciting Super Bowl I can remember (that the Steelers didn't win, that is) and very well played--few penalties and I believe only one turnover--and that was a doozy, a perfectly timed Saints interception and 75 yd. run for the TD that sealed it. Lots of dramatic moments, several surprising running plays and of course lots and lots of passing. That New Orleans won it--and deserved to win it, with skill, grit and fearlessness--makes this one to remember. Probably no city outside of Pittsburgh has a closer identification with its team, and the Saints identify with their city more than anybody. So a great win for a beleaguered city with an amazing history.

The Who rocked halftime--not as great as the Boss, but fun anyway. Great music--from what's turned out to be the high times of rock.

The commercials were appalling, in their confusion, violence, and what they say about American culture. The one with Jay Leno and David Letterman, with Oprah between them, was funny, and Hundyai had some good ones, scoring with a funny Brett Favre bit and voiceovers from the likely Best Actor winner this year, Jeff Bridges. Otherwise, more efforts to turn women as well as men into beer-sucking infants. Ugly, ugly, ugly. But everything else was fun.

Update: Ratings say that this Super Bowl was the most watched TV show in history.

The Politics of Health Care

President Obama outlined the process for health insurance reform at a Democratic National Committee function on Thursday, and it's pretty interesting, pretty shrewd. It also illuminates for me what conclusions he's drawn from the debacle in MA.

Immediately after the unthinkable (and unthinkably embarrassing) loss of the 60th Senate seat in a solidly Democratic state--the seat held by John and Edward Kennedy for a half century--Obama announced that he wasn't going to try to rush the healthcare bill out of conference and through the House and Senate before the Dems lost their filibuster-proof 60 (which coincidentally happened officially on Thursday.) This upset some people, because it seemed a kind of surrender. He also seemed to step back from the process, letting congressional leaders hash out how to accomplish the final bill, and some feared he was abandoning health care completely.

But in his State of the Union and in every forum since, he's made clear that he's still committed to healthcare reform. But why he backed off a bit became
clearer today. Apart from the complacency that allowed the Senate seat to slip away (and Obama addressed that immediately by bringing David Plouffe back to ride herd over all the congressional races this year), Obama clearly saw that the GOPers had succeeded in distorting the healthcare package enough so it didn't have the support it should. And the lack of public support was showing up in declining support among Democrats in Congress.

So his plan is to organize a meeting of legislators--Dems and GOPers--along with the relevant experts, make it public--televise it--and hash out the plans that were passed, and what should go into the final bill. Then put it to a vote. The process, he indicated, should take only a few weeks, and might be the next order of business after the jobs bill he says is his first priority right now.

“What I’d like to do is have a meeting whereby I am sitting with the Republicans, sitting with the Democrats, sitting with health care experts and let’s just go through these bills,” Mr. Obama said. “Their ideas, our ideas. Let’s walk through them in a methodical way, so that the American people can see and compare what makes the most sense. And then I think that we have got to move forward on a vote. We have got to move forward on a vote.”

Part of what Obama clearly wants to do is clear the air of distortions, and focus public attention on what the bill will really do, and what it won't.

Mr. Obama said that Americans were apprehensive about the health care legislation because there was too much misinformation that he would now work to clear up.
“They are certain that they would have to go onto a government plan, which isn’t true,” the president said. “But that’s still a perception a lot of people have. They are still pretty sure that they would have to give up their doctor. They are still pretty sure that if they are happy with their health care plan, that it’s bad for them. They are still positive that this is going to add to the deficit. So there is a lot of information out there that people understandably are concerned about.”

He presented the rest of the process in a matter-of-fact manner: He continued, “That’s why I think it’s very important for us to have a methodical, open process over the next several weeks and then let’s go ahead and make a decision. And it may be that if Congress decides, if Congress decides we’re not going to do it, even after all the facts are laid out, all the options are clear, then the American people can make a judgment as to whether this Congress has done the right thing for them or not. And that’s how democracy works, and there will be elections coming up and they will be able to make a determination and register their concerns one way or another during election time.”

But there was a more aggressive message under the calm. Because clearly he believes this is an argument he can win, and once the actual undistorted plan is clarified for the public, there will be a political price to pay for not passing it.

It's a gamble, but you have to like his chances. GOPers are still reeling from his dismantling of them and their arguments at the Republican House caucus. The other very powerful element in his favor is the fact that both the House and Senate have already passed comprehensive health care bills, 90% of them (the President says) the same. So all the painful months of this process so far may not have been wasted. It still will take some heavy lifting, but the process that Obama outlined is both rational and politically shrewd. GOPers have been crying that nobody is listening to their ideas, and they've criticized Obama for not conducting a more public--and televised--process. After the televised caucus Q&A, they may not be as eager for that--but if it's handled right, they're going to get it.

If it works, the process will be persuasive, polls will reflect increasing public support for reform, and legislators will have to decide which side of history to be on, and what they want to face the voters having done or not done.

At one point, as the president insisted that he would continue to fight for the health care bill, the crowd chanted, “Yes, we can! Yes, we can!”

Play The Damn Game

Since I stopped watching political shows, I tend to eat breakfast with sports shows washing over me like water warmed by hot air. I don't expect much of them. I like PTI--I met Tony Kornheiser once when he was a young wolf, and we were both circling around the same foxy lady. Only I was invited, Tony--you weren't!

Anyway.

It's Wednesday and I'm sick to death of the Super Bowl, which isn't until Sunday. Two weeks of chatter is a week too much. And there really isn't much to say. You can't root against New Orleans, but Indianapolis has the edge, because once Payton Manning figures out the defense--and sooner or later that usually happens--he can carve it up. That's what it all comes down to.

Besides, these teams are so evenly matched that it all comes down to game day. Which defense clicks, and which quarterback. Which receivers make the catches they should, and which backs have a good running day, without fumbles. Nobody can predict any of that.

And only the teams themselves know what their coaches have up their sleeves. Maybe a new blocking scheme to unleash New Orleans' formidable runners, taking the pressure off the passing game. Here, the Saints have the edge. If Reggie Bush has a great game, they have the edge.

It could be a sloppy game, even a grinding game, but chances are it will be an exciting game. I'm just tired of hearing about it. Play the damn game and talk about something else, please.

League Championship Thoughts

So I picked them both (Indy-30 Jets 17, New Orleans 31 MN 28) but I don't feel good about it--at least, not about the second game. The Saints-Vikings game started out great, a lot of fun to watch. But it got ugly. It isn't fun, at least for me, seeing a quarterback get beat up like Brett Favre did. The Vikings basically outplayed the Saints, Favre outplayed Brees, but some pretty bad calls by the officials and some unforced errors set them back. Still, Favre had them in position to win the game, but at the end of regulation, beaten up physically and mentally exhausted, he made a fatal mistake. He had to get ten yards or so, and though he had a running lane he probably didn't feel he could make it. He threw an interception, and his truly courageous game ended with a bitter taste.

The Saints offense did basically nothing the second half. They got a few breaks in overtime, and their kicker did his job. It's great that New Orleans is in their first Super Bowl ever, but they got in ugly.

I also have to say that based on this game I'm withdrawing my SB pick. The Saints were almost rudderless in the second half--they couldn't run, they couldn't throw. Now Indy has two weeks to study what the Vikings defense did to stymie the Saints. The Saints looked lethargic, they were out of rhythm. It may have been that they were beat up, too, and two weeks to heal up should help their energy level. But if the Colts defense can replicate what the Vikings did, the edge goes to them.

As happened all season, the Colts did just enough to win. That's usually dangerous, but the Colts play with such confidence, and Payton Manning deals with pressure and defenses so well, that they are hardly ever out of the game. They basically studied what the Jets did in the first half, didn't panic when they were behind, and carved up the Jets defense and stifled their offense in the second half. The Saints will need to reenergize, and they'll need Indy mistakes and the kind of breaks they got today.

On the other hand, there is still the question mark about the relative strengths of the conferences--it looked to me that the NFC teams were stronger. New Orleans dismantled the Patriots, but then it turns out that the Patriots weren't so good even relative to the AFC. The Saints OL and DL could overpower Indy. Although I don't relish seeing another quarterback beaten into the ground. I guess that's why some people watch football. Not me.

NFL: Final Four Picks

Due to popular demand from a breathless public, I'm issuing my picks for the playoff games this weekend--because there just isn't enough about them available on TV and in print. (Seriously, I didn't think it was possible to talk so much about the same four teams every day for a week, but hey, that's why I'm not on ESPN.)

Indianapolis Colts v. New York Jets: On offense, the Jets run and the Colts pass. The Jets defense can cover and also blitz, and so, to a lesser extent, can the Colts. If the Jets control the tempo by running effectively, and their defense smothers Payton Manning, they win. But if they fall behind, they have a harder time catching up by scoring points quickly. If the game is close, Manning is better at manufacturing points, and except in a real blowout, the Colts can never be counted out until the game is over. I expect Manning to do a lot of short passes, to try to counter the Jets ability to dominate the clock. But Manning can also get points on the board. If the Colts can't stop the run, they're pretty close to cooked. If the Jets can't stop the pass, they are cooked.

So when you're looking at this by considering various scenarios, the Colts have to be the favorites--they have more ways to win. Also on average, this looks to be a close game. Still, this game could be a blowout either way, depending on whose specific game plan works, plus the breaks of the game. Both teams are capable of having a great game, and both are capable of having a bad game. How's that for temporizing? So I have to pick the Colts, but a Jets victory would not surprise me.

New Orleans Saints v. Minneapolis Vikings: A pair of well-matched teams, with high powered offenses and defenses that can be stifling, but can also be breached. I expected to be picking MN because of their defense and the wily ways of Brett Favre. But then I saw New Orleans last week, and if they play like that, no one can beat them. I haven't seen a more balanced offense since the 70s Steelers, and their defense was pretty impressive.

Both of these offenses can be so efficient that they're scary. Still, I don't think this is going to be as high-scoring as the Arizona-San Diego game. This one is less likely to be a blowout either way than the AFC final. So... with the Saints at home, a possible key injury to the MN offense, I have to give the edge to New Orleans. But again, a Vikings victory wouldn't surprise me.

But if that's not definite enough for you, here's this: the winner of the Saints-Viking game beats the winner of the Colts-Jets game in the Super Bowl.

NFL: Now There Are Four

I'm three for four this weekend on playoff games, including the Dallas meltdown I predicted would happen. But how about those Jets? That was the big surprise--San Diego was a frequent favorite to get to the Bowl, especially on the basis of momentum. But for San Diego (and Dallas) the momentum stopped cold on Sunday, and partly for the same reasons: the other team's defense getting to the Qback, turnovers, an unaccountably erratic kicker, and a certain loss of composure. I expected that from Dallas, but not San Diego.

I have to laugh at all the Dallas hype--and that's another commonality. I think both Dallas and San Diego believed their hype. Minnesota showed some character. So did the Jets, though they got some breaks and hung on. Minnesota just kept coming, taking every opportunity.

Saturday's story was the return of the winning moxie for New Orleans and Indianapolis, both undefeated until late in the season, both throttled back towards the end and lost several games. But they were vindicated about rest--both very energetic and, contrary to expectations, sharp. Especially New Orleans. That was the most fun to watch of any of the playoff games I've seen this year. I watched Reggie Bush at USC (all their games are broadcast here) so it was fun watching him do similarly flashy running (contrary to what the announcers were saying, he ran over people at USC too.)

So now that I'm on a roll, what are my picks for next week? I don't know if I will make any, certainly not now. I know the sportswriters have to be salivating for a Minnesota-New York Bowl: the wily 40 year old veteran Qback vs the rookie Qback half his age. And it could happen. Right now I'd have to give MN an edge for defense vs. New Orleans, but the Saints get a big home field advantage. New Orleans can be dominant, but Minnesota can be wily and if the game is close you can't ever count them out. So right now I'd say that one is even.

The Colts have the early edge v. the Jets, but the Colts have won so many games by getting breaks late that their luck has to run out some time. (They won by 17 over the Ravens, but the Ravens aren't that impressive.) How much pressure can the Jets get on Manning? Which team makes the fewer mistakes? I don't think anyone can confidently make the Jets the favorite. But you can't count them out.

Nobody expected three not very close games this weekend (New Orleans was a blowout, and though MN won by a big margin, it wasn't really over until the 4th quarter.) But I'm sure the conventional wisdom will be for a high scoring MN/N.O game and a low scoring Indy/Jets. We'll see.

I used to be a big fan of late night talk shows. I cut my teeth on the great Steve Allen show on Westinghouse in the early 60s, and being a night owl anyway, I watched far too much of Johnny Carson, Tom Snyder's Tomorrow Show, Arsenio Hall, David Letterman's NBC show and God help me Joey Bishop, Merv Griffin, and even Regis Philbin's brief late night foray. I remember as a child listening to the adults talking in hushed tones about the original Steve Allen Tonight Show and did bluff my way into seeing a little Jack Paar.

But I haven't watched any of it for years (even though I was present backstage with Steve Allen at the Tonight Show anniversary during Jay Leno's first year), until one night this week, when the Conan O'Brien-Jay Leno kerfluffle at NBC hit high gear. If you haven't followed it, basically: Jay Leno left the Tonight Show 8 months ago and began a 10 pm show several nights a week, while Conan ( who previously followed Tonight in Letterman's old spot) took over Tonight, as his contract stipulated. But Leno's show bombed and Conan lost the Tonight Show's ratings over Letterman (now on CBS.) So NBC wanted to put Leno back on at 11:35, with Conan still doing Tonight, but at 12:05. Conan refused, in an open letter professing devotion to the Tonight Show tradition.

I tuned in that night to see him, switching back and forth to Letterman, and later also Jimmy Fallon and a touch of Carson Daly on NBC, Jimmy Kimmel on ABC and Craig Ferguson following Letterman on CBS. Not only did Conan have a lot to say about the NBC situation--they all did. Major dollops of their humor were about it, and almost all of it was hostile to Leno and NBC. There was less of it with Jimmy Fallon, who was clearly more taken with fulfilling a widely shared fantasy of singing a Beatles tune with a real Beatle (Ringo Starr.) But Jimmy Kimmel did his whole show as Jay Leno--though it was described as "unflattering," it got him an invitation to appear on Leno's prime time show. (It's also possible that I've confused the two Jimmy's.)

I dipped back into it last night, and the Leno/NBC/ insecure talk show host jibes continued, falling flat to me--I mean, poor poor pitiful Conan, who is likely to come out of this at worst with a settlement worth $10 million a year. My other takeaway, and this probably says more about me than about them, but I don't find late night interesting or funny anymore. And I haven't for years--clearly why I stopped watching. The guests are comparatively boring and almost exclusively show biz, and the humor isn't worth the increased commercials time. Though Jimmy Fallon is a nice enough, the only new guy who makes me laugh is Craig Ferguson. As for the kerfluffle, well, I don't think Conan is that good. Letterman's show is better. This may be an age thing (mine I mean) but Letterman's is better paced.

The other element in all this is Comedy Central's dynamic duo of Jon Stewart and the Colbert Report. So I suppose if I got back into the bad late night TV habit I'd start by switching around from Stewart-Colbert/Charlie Rose/Sports Center and Star Trek: The Next Generation reruns from 11 to 12, then check out Craig Ferguson's monologue. I don't know, maybe it is a better use of my time than blogging.

Wild Wild Card Weekend

The New England Patriots and Philadelphia Eagles destroyed themselves instead of the Dallas Cowboys doing so, and Green Bay's vaunted defense disappeared, leading to some wild Wild Card outcomes. For the Eagles and maybe especially the Patriots, there will be questions that some fans are asking about the Steelers--are they suddenly too old? Or is this a Lost Season for Brady coming back from injury, just as Big Ben's first year back was for him?

I watched little or none of three of the Wild Card games, which probably should disqualify me from commenting, but it's my blog and I'll cry if I want to. Frankly I don't like either Dallas or Philly so almost anything was more important than watching that game, and maybe I should have paid more attention to match-up problems Philly had vs. Dallas, so I'll listen more closely to match-ups next time. But I don't buy into Dallas as a team of destiny just yet. They still seem fundamentally able to crack up at any time.

I did watch a lot of that touch football game between Green Bay and Arizona. Maybe that's how the game should be played--it was fun and nobody got killed. It seems evident that neither team could defend and both quarterbacks had a brilliant day, but I'd point out something else: the receivers on both teams had a brilliant day. They were catching everything. Talk about age--can Kurt Warner's arm recover in time to challenge New Orleans? That's a big question in my mind.

It's possible that the winner of the Dallas-Minnesota game next weekend will have played their toughest game of the playoffs. I'm rooting for Minnesota, and I expect the Saints, Colts and Chargers to advance, but what do I know? I'm 1-3. At least I was right about the Bungles.

Wild Picks

For Wild Card weekend, I'm picking New England, New York, Philadelphia and Green Bay. Though the Bungles are favored over the Jets, they've been moving in the wrong direction for much of the second half of the season, and the Jets have the mo. The same might be said of Dallas vs. Philly, but I don't think the result will be the same this time. Dallas is going to self-destruct at some point in the playoffs, and this game is as good as any.

Meanwhile, the Steelers have axed their offensive line and special teams coaches, and re-hired their offensive coordinator. Though their defensive coordinator told somebody that he wasn't retiring, there's nothing official yet. The official word on Big Ben's shoulder is that he's okay, but I wouldn't take that to the bank just yet.

As for the national college championship game, it pretty much ceased to be that in the first few minutes when quarterback Colt McCoy, the entire Texas offense, left the game hurt. After days of hype, I wonder how many millions turned it off after ten minutes. Fortunately for the sports channels, next year's quarterback for Texas brought them back, before the crucial turnover--where have I seen this script before? Oh yeah, the first Steelers vs. Ravens.

Now that the Browns new g. m. has rehired their coach, who was 1-11 before ending the season with four straight wins, maybe Pittsburgh can feel a little better about being the first in that streak--victimized by low expectations as well as a suddenly energized and effective running game by the Browns. It looks like the AFC North next season is going to be a lot more competitive.

The Irregular Season

The NFL regular season is over, and it was weird. Denver began it by winning six straight games, and lost so often afterwards that they didn't make the playoffs. Indianapolis and New Orleans came into the last weeks within striking distance of a perfect season: now Indy has lost two in a row, and New Orleans three.

No team looked good for the whole season. The hot teams right now--San Diego and Dallas--were pathetic early on. Not to mention the New York Jets. Some of the league's worst teams for much of the season--Cleveland, Kansas City, Oakland, San Francisco--went on winning streaks and scored a lot of points. Except for Oakland, with another injury to another quarterback, they ended the season strong.

Within that irregular context, the Steelers strange season doesn't seem so strange. At one time poised to make a run for the division championship on their way to the playoffs and the Super Bowl, after winning big games and entering the soft part of their schedule facing weaker opponents, they lost five games in a row, including three inexplicable ones. Then facing quality opponents, they won three in a row to end the season, including Sunday's victory over Miami. For a few hours afterwards, their slim playoff hopes were alive. But as predicted, Baltimore and the New York Jets won their games, and the Steelers season was over.

But within the strange scheme of wins and losses, there were meaningful patterns. The Steelers won or lost by not many points. Sometimes their offense sputtered, but more often their defense couldn't stop the other team, particularly late in the game. Sunday was no different. The offense scored early and often, but the defense gave up points. Then a key injury to Miami--their second-string quarterback went out--allowed them to pile up a lead. But Miami's third string quarterback scored two quick touchdowns on the defense, and was poised to score another when he made a fatal mistake. And that was the game.

That's how the Steelers won and lost this year. They won when the other team made more mistakes, and they got lucky. They lost when they made more mistakes, and the other team got lucky. Nobody overpowered them. And they couldn't overpower anyone.

And all through the league, injuries to key personnel made a big difference. For the Steelers, it was Troy P. What was different for the Steelers was that without Troy and another key defender, the defense showed vulnerabilities that maybe even the team didn't understand were there. And now they know.

Sunday's Steelers game was bracing in several ways. Fans had to be excited seeing the running game return, and especially Willie Parker show some spark. Special teams performed well, and Stefan Logan may have saved his job with several skillful returns. (Parker may have as well, assuming he wants to stay in Pittsburgh and will accept a lesser role and contract.) And Big Ben--well, when the extent of his arm or shoulder injury is known, we'll know if not getting into the playoffs may be a blessing. But he played so valiantly and so well, taking the Steelers on their final drive to seal what had suddenly become a close game, throwing accurate passes in obvious pain...it was the most courageous performance I've seen since the famous Michael Jordan playoff game when he was so weak from flu he could hardly walk onto the floor.

Going out with these three victories, and with some great highlights, helps the fans keep the faith, and helps the players restore some self-respect. But it doesn't change the likelihood that there are going to be changes.

As for the rest of the day, the Jets blew out Cincy, and play them again in the first round. I don't see the Bengals or the Ravens getting very far. New England played Brady on Sunday, and they still lost--but more to the point for their chances, they lost their top wide receiver. Indy may have run out of luck. San Diego looks like the AFC favorite.

Dallas blew out Philadelphia in a game that both teams wanted, and they play each other again next week in the first round. Despite the score, Philly is capable of turning the tables on Dallas. Minnesota won big, so they go into the playoffs with some confidence. New Orleans lost again, and their confidence must be pretty low. Green Bay finished strong, too, but Minnesota beat them twice. I'm thinking Minnesota.

But if the playoffs are as irregular as the season, all bets are off.

Sports Talkers

I give credit to sports reporters and commentators. Sure, they're cliche-ridden. In addition to the usual nomenclature, this year's flavor of the tongue in football includes "makes plays" as in this player/offense/defense not only does this and that, but most importantly, they "make plays." Another favorite concerns players who are good "in space." They don't mean outer space, but in what used to be called the "open field." Or sometimes, just when not in direct contact with other bodies. And therefore the cliche of the year has to do with players capable of "making plays in space." That's good, you see.

So plenty of cliches old and new, but at the end of the day---hah, an old favorite--I give credit to sports talkers (particularly on ESPN) who still know, understand and employ the distinction between "fewer" and "less." So they describe a team as having "fewer points," or a defense that is making "fewer interceptions" this year, etc. And I also note that Keith Olbermann, sportscaster as well as political talker, observes the classical definition of "presently," meaning "soon," not "currently."

It's not just a case of proper use of English, but of having something interesting to say. (Though they often go together.) Certain commentators, like Merle Hodge, are especially knowledgeable and informative. And I've watched Sunday Night Football on NBC even when I didn't care much about the teams playing, just for the coverage by Al Michaels and Cris Collingsworth.

Of course, there are plenty of sports talkers who talk blather, and do so incoherently. I heard one guy trying to fill time in a dull game today praise a coach for transforming a college program "singlehandedly, with a lot of help from other people." I turned him off.