WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

THAT. WAS. AWESOME.

Michigan: Better than you since 1817.

No Debate

A friend attempted to "pick apart" a wonderful column by David Warren that I posted on Facebook. Instead, he revealed his own ignorance and puerility.

I refuse to debate those whose sweeping pronouncements, because they are based on their poor understanding of the current crisis, are akin to neolithic cavemen deifying flashes of lightning.

This Man Should Not Win The Heisman

From right to left: Coach Sulky Face, Javon Ringer's grill, and Lowly Grad Assistant who is inexplicably all up in it.

I'm talkin' about the guy in the middle, above.

Your first clue: He goes to a university that defines itself entirely in relation to another school. Seriously. This urbandictionary page is a fascinating case study in the unparalleled wonder that is the Spartan Psyche.

But there are more. First of all, he's not even the best at his position. Knowshon Moreno has 250 fewer yards...on less than half the carries. He still has almost as many TDs as Ringer, despite not being his team's whole offense. Cal's Jahvid Best performed better than Ringer in direct play against MSU, and also has better stats for the whole year.

Even if he were the best RB, this is a terrible year for RBs. Comparatively, the QB situation is perverse. There are possibly 47 QBs who are more Heisman-worthy than Ringer in the Big Twelve alone. That is an exaggeration. But Curtis Painter, lamentably, might be the only Big Ten QB who could start almost anywhere in that conference. And I certainly think BYU's Max Hall, USC's Mark Sanchez, Oklahoma's Sam Bradford, and Florida's Tim Tebow should all be above JR. I haven't even mentioned the obvious winner at this point: Mizzou's Chase Daniel. Twenty straight completions? It doesn't matter against whom this is accomplished. The man is the football equivalent of a demigod.

Javon Ringer For Heisman = VERY NO. Seriously. No.

Demagoguery At Its Finest

Sanity may yet win the day, but it won't be because of men like Robert Kuttner, whose American Prospect piece today--"Paulson's Folly"--studiously exploits ignorance about the sources of the current financial crisis to mischaracterize Paulson's bailout plan and encourage false stereotypes of Republicans and Democrats.

Read it all, though for anyone well-versed in the situation it is akin to sitting through an hour of Keith Olbermann on a stomach full of bad seafood. On the other hand, it's always amusing when people who pretend to be serious commentators still see Democrats as Crusaders for the Little Guy (TM), Who Don't Know Much, But Know Somethin' 'Bout Common Dencency Dagnabbit, as opposed to the Republicans with ten gallon hats, nefarious-looking moustaches, and wives wearing fur coats and using their cigarette holders to direct their beaten-down, minority servants.

It would be a terrible shame if the current crisis were to redound to the political advantage of the congressional Democrats who helped begin it by pushing the race-baiting policies (i.e. those against alleged "redlining") and passing the absurd and panicked post-Enron regulations (i.e. the mark-to-market accounting rules included in Sarbanes-Oxley) that contributed to this mess. And I haven't even mentioned their babies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose shady activities ultimately began this crisis and somehow went under the radar while Fannie and Freddie contributed a bunch of money to none other than Democratic senators Chris Dodd and Barack Obama. (There were others, but these two are the biggest recipients.) Efforts to reform these corporations, undertaken by John McCain, George Bush and others to prevent a crisis predicted well in advance by Alan Greenspan, were blocked by...hmm, guess whom?

But that truth might be too inconvenient for Robert Kuttner and the liberal establishment.

She Makes All The Right People Angry

The best way to tell for whom to vote in presidential elections is whom the candidates make angry, and how much. Sarah Palin has almost locked up my vote forever.

Charlie Rangel recently referred to her as "disabled" (Hat tip: Allahpundit). Canadian tax dollars funded this statement that Sarah Palin is "white trash" (Hat tip: also Allahpundit). And there's so much more.

It's been, quite honestly, a blast. I hate to see someone like Sarah--it just seems fitting to use her first name, or perhaps Mrs. Palin--trashed endlessly in national news outlets, but she seems like the type who can handle it. (That may be what they hate most.) However, it's been enormously entertaining to see the pent-up elite condescension and arrogance come bursting forth in a flood of the sort of hate-filled expression one rarely finds outside of college campuses and the occasional high-school classroom.

At Least There Aren't Any FUNNY Shows Campaigning For Obama Yet

But in case you missed it, the once-amusing sketch comedy program Saturday Night Live has lent out its airtime to the Obamessiah.

SNL opened a recent episode with a sketch featuring John McCain fumbling with technology (haha! he's old!) and approving ridiculous attack ads against Obama (OMG heresy). They even took a shot at Sarah Palin's lack of experience (haha! she's got less experience ... campaigning ... nationally...hrm...). If these things were simply SNL attempting to be funny instead of making some sort of ill-considered point, then....how do they have a comedy show and I don't?

This looks bad for a few reasons. First of all, this sketch could have come directly from the Obamessiah's recent talking points: 1) McCain can't use email (in fact, this is because of injuries sustained during his torture at the hands of the North Vietnamese Communists). 2) The idea that, somehow, McCain's campaign has taken a much lower road despite the Obamessiah camp's repeated sliming of critics, absurd and outright lies to scare the elderly, and his recent Spanish-language ad insinuating that John McCain is an anti-immigration zealot in league with Rush Limbaugh, who by the way is a racist if you take some things he said completely out of context. (This is particularly laughable to anyone who's lis tened to a single full episode of Rush.)

Of course, it isn't particularly surprising that SNL would stoop to becoming a Democratic campaign commercial. And it's especially unsurprising that flailing Democratic Senate candidate and noted sleazeball Al Franken probably came up with the idea, considering just how funny it is.

Just imagine how devastating it could potentially be if a good show started this kind of thing. I, for one, am looking forward to second seasons for NBC's Chuck and CBS's The Big Bang Theory, as well as NBC's The Office and 30 Rock and ABC's merciful mid-season pick-up of Scrubs for its eighth season.

This Moment Brought To You By The Football Gods

Today is, as ESPN.com's Adam Rittenberg notes, the two-year anniversary of one of the best sports radio rants ever.  Ever.

September 23, 2006.  My Wolverines were on their way to an 11-0 start and had just sobered up the Irish (haha) to the tune of 47-21.  The Spartans had beaten Notre Dame in South Bend in 2005 in OT and classlessly planted its flag on their 50-yard-line.  A beleaguered Irish team entered East Lansing that day to face a resurgent Spartan team with a skilled senior QB and a deep backfield.

MSU dominated the first half, and then the hurricane hit.  I remember that night, how hard the rain came down.  I remember hearing the cheers from the stadium all the way up in North Campus, even in the middle of one of the biggest storms they had during my four years there.  You couldn't ask for a more faithful fan base, one that wanted it more that night.

And then, it happened again.  Again.  MSU choked it away, and in the most heartbreaking fashion I have ever personally witnessed.  I can't really describe the looks on the faces of the people on my floor afterward.  It wasn't that they couldn't believe it; far from that, they suspected it would happen all along.  And that must've been the worst part.  Not just to lose to a hated rival again after such a great start, again, but to see that your team is exactly the team they've always been, and not champions.  Still, not champions.  I'd never seen looks like that on fans' faces before, and I haven't again since then, not even when I was at the Appalachian State game.  Even I, a completely and utterly deathless enemy of Spartan football, felt sorry for them.  Not condescendingly--sympathetically.  It was truly awful.

But two years later, it's worth remembering for this awesome moment in sports radio history, brought to you by the Spartans' Mike Valenti.  Listen to the whole quarter-hour.  Seriously.  You don't even have to be a sports fan, necessarily.  It is, quite simply, unspeakably delightful.  As far as I'm concerned, if the Spartans could just perpetually cause this sort of thing to happen, I would be extremely happy with that.  Enjoy:

Credit and the FDR Myth

I'd planned a more elaborate post regarding the powerful "FDR Myth" in American electoral politics, but alas, rude interruptions from my life as a graduate student have prevented me from doing so.  Suffice it to say that the FDR Myth--that the free market failed, Hoover's conservative policies were ineffective, and Roosevelt fixed the whole thing with government involvement--is back.  This time, McCain plays the role of the inept Iowa Republican, refusing to buck conventional (constitutional?) wisdom to fix everything, and Obama is the heroic Progressive who rides into town and restores America to the Little Guy.  Such arguments are invariably short on economic analysis, heavy on overwrought outrage about such things as an offhand comment that the fundamentals of the economy are strong.  Try these on for size:  my friend's Facebook post of an Eric Rauchway column in the American Prospect (which is, far from "stunningly good," rather stunningly ignorant of economics), and Froma Harrop on RealClearPolitics.

On the other hand, we have several columns from people who--what do you know!--actually know something about financial markets.  And they seem to think that these problems have been caused--what do you know!--by some absurd regulations panickedly passed into law after the Enron scandal and absurd regulations forced on banks by racemongers in the Nineties.  Here you go:

• Larry Kudlow, "Never Sell America Short"
• Neal Boortz, "The Rest of the Meltdown Story"
• Zachary Karabell, "Bad Accounting Rules Helped Sink AIG"

I know, guys.  Ever since the unfettered free market--*snort*, interjects Michelle Malkin--caused the Great Depression, every economic downturn, every stock market crash, every downtick in employment has, to these economic illiterates, provided a reason to return to Thirties-style socialism.  It must be disappointing that, for all the impassioned attacks against such left-wing bogeymen as "speculators," the free market isn't going to send the economy into a deregulation-induced tailspin while Republican fat cats retire to their mansions to let the exploited underclass rot in their sprawling Dubyavilles.  Maybe next time.

The imagery would be more entertaining if it weren't politically effective.

Bowl Chances

Posts like this are always a good opportunity to look foolish later on, but hey...a paid professional already did it today, so why not me?

I still think Michigan goes to a bowl game.  Here we go.

They have to win at least seven games, most likely, to do this, since all 7-5 teams have to be taken over all 6-6 teams (negating Michigan's inevitable ratings/attendance advantage over all the likely middle-of-the-pack Big Ten teams).  So out of the remaining nine games, we have to find six wins.

Michigan's offense still looked good against Notre Dame when it wasn't committing a freakish amount of turnovers--a phenomenon that is not likely to persist, at least not like that.  The defense still looked good, apart from a couple blown big plays.  Like Jamie Samuelsen, I think Michigan beats Notre Dame if they play again.  Moreover, I think Michigan's offensive is getting a lot better every week.  We've found our QB in Steven Threet and our RB in Sam McGuffie, and our other pint-sized freshman slot lightning bolt, Terrance Robinson, is expected back within the next few games after spending the first three sidelined.

I think I can chalk up Northwestern, Purdue, Toledo, and Minnesota as likely victories, so let's do that.  Gets us to five, with five games left to consider.  Despite AN Ohio State University's troubles, I think we can still mark our game at Ohio Stadium with a big L.  Same with Penn State, who, although they've only really played weaklings so far, looks very good, plays us at home, and has long-, LONG-awaited revenge on their minds.  So that leaves three games with two necessary wins:  Michigan State, Wisconsin, and Illinois.  All three games are at home.

Of the three, Wisconsin seems like the least likely victory.  We play them next--giving us less improvement time--and they seem to be the best of the three.  They have a veteran RB and a good, veteran line, as well as a great TE.  Our best chance is to put up a lot of points early and force their first-year QB to pass...but even with that, I still don't see it.  But nothing's impossible.

Michigan State boasts a fantastic RB, a mediocre line, and an even worse QB.  Their defense might be good, but we haven't really had a chance to see yet:  they gave up lots of points, lots of big runs, to Cal, another spread team with tiny quickish guys.  (Cal proceeded to thwomp another minor team, then get crushed by lowly Maryland of the quasi-mid-major ACC.)  They held Eastern Michigan to an expectedly low score.  They shut out FAU, which would have been impressive minus the monsoon.  If Michigan contains Ringer and gets to Hoyer, expect a Michigan victory, especially at home.  The offense will be a lot better by then, barring more O-line injuries.  *panickedly knocking on wood*

Illinois is still Illinois.  Same inconsistent, great-talent, poor-execution team.  Michigan's never yet struggled with Juice Williams, and I doubt that they start now.  And this year, there's no Mendenhall.  The Illini D has not played impressively, and that might spell trouble against a steadily improving Michigan offense at the Big House.  I outright predict a Michigan victory here.

Thus, I predict that our bowl chances may very well rest on our beating Michigan State, and I give us even chances from what I've seen so far.

Disiuncta

Grad school has been consuming much time I would normally spend on this blog, so I apologize for the extremely long delays between posts.  I cannot predict an uptick in blogging here, but I can post what I can when I can, anyway.  So here goes!

• Jay Nordlinger is, hands-down, my favorite political writer.  Unlike most who write about politics, Jay displays in his columns an irrepressible humanity, a love of beauty, and a rare sincerity.  He is, quite simply, terribly normal. His expression of conservatism is not a series of logical arguments that forth a political doctrine, but a window into the heart of a person who lives conservative values each day.  And really, isn't conservatism about life and values anyway, and not doctrine?  Read his stuff at http://www.nationalreview.com/, already!
• Michigan did manage to defeat Miami (Ohio), if underwhelmingly.  I keep hearing that Steven Threet was outperformed by Nick Sheridan.  Threet had his problems connecting with open receivers downfield--in the same sense that Varrus encountered some difficulties in the Teutoberg Forest (classics zing!) (Threet, give me back my touchdowns!  I need to stop.)--but that option isn't even there with Sheridan.  Not only that, but Threet seems to make better decisions than Sheridan, even out of the zone read play.  I think Threet will eventually find those receivers, and he's the starter.  At any rate, the real problems are in blocking:  the offensive line is riddled with injuries, and the wide receivers are struggling in their new role as downfield blockers.  These things will improve with reps, but it remains to be seen how effective the offense can conceivably be against major-conference teams.
• The defense is not a huge worry.
• John McCain is coming back in a big way.  The latest indication?  The Intrade Market Odds, which once had Arizona's senior senator down 20-30 points, now give him a 6-percent edge.  Is it any wonder that the media are melting down?
• Speaking of which:  Obama's skid is greatly satisfying, but not moreso than the media's Palin huffery.  Men are revealed most in the sudden, unguarded moments of great emotion, and their immediate and natural condescension gave Americans a look at what their true colors: all blue.  Happily, in more ways than one.

Palin: My Take

The Sarah Palin thing has generated enough interest in me at a time when I happen to have the luxury to post a lot, that...here we are. My post about Sarah Palin. Or, I guess, Sarah Palin in the larger context of the presidential election/general electoral politics.

Her speech was good. Not just good. Awesome. I haven't heard a better speech since, perhaps, Zell Miller's at RNC '04. "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities." Money.

I haven't always agreed with John McCain's actions, but he is definitely unafraid to attack entrenched interests, and that is something we could use. Sarah Palin only bolsters that reputation, as she took on corrupt Republicans in Alaska, not to mention the oil companies, and scored unlikely and impressive victories--although much work is left to be done there, so long as the reprehensible Sen. Stevens and Rep. Young remain in office. Certainly, Obama, with his solid and longstanding support of such interests as NARAL and the NEA--not to mention his participation in Chicago machine politics--cannot claim the same reformist credentials.

Suddenly, I have another reason--if I needed one--to vote for McCain against Obama. I want to see Sarah Palin in national politics, and if she can gain more experience and the stars align, I will wholeheartedly support her for president someday. She is smart, up-front, a doer rather than a talker, nevertheless a great communicator, and genuine. She seems to have a knack for mocking opponents in a way that seems more legitimate than mean. And she gets people fired up in a big way. (Just watch the video.)

And not just people...ME. How often does that happen without some maize and blue involvement?

Nota: DDT, Part Deux

Pile it on!

• Paul K. Driessen:  "The Truth About DDT."  Author of Eco-Imperialism:  Green Power and Black Death.
• http://www.3dchem.com/molecules.asp?ID=90.  Some basic info about this little-ish molecule.
• Time.com:  "Safe DDT."  From army officers.  They know safety.
• Cecil Adams, The Straight Dope column:  "Was Rachel Carson a Fraud and Is DDT Actually Safe For Humans?"  A measured answer.
• Terence Kealey, Daily Telegraph:  "DDT is safe; just ask the professor who ate it for forty years."  Erm...bleargh.

Enjoy.

Blog Difficulties Of Various Kinds

Hey guys.  I've been absolutely terrible about posting, obviously, but to be fair, it's my first week at one of the top grad schools in its field in the world.  Things are busy, to say the least!  But as I adjust and things settle down a bit, I'll try to be back and providing insight--or ramblings, depending on your perspective--on the political/athletic/whatever interests me events of the day.

Furthermore, my ability to comment on my own posts has been...curtailed, somehow.  I'm thinking here of prospective and, inexplicably, impossible comments in response to "Ed Darrell" on the topic of DDT.  I had no idea that such inoffensive concepts as the fact that light indoor spraying of DDT could save millions of lives from malaria or that DDT has not been demonstrated to be a carcinogen--and it certainly has not--would be responded to with such force and vehemence.  (With a little added Big Tobacco accusation thrown in!  Delightful.)  Another round of DDT links to follow.

Anyway, I'll throw in a little bonus comment about Sarah Palin:  She's likeable.  I like her.  There.