tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-63915371518313318362024-03-05T08:25:42.877-08:00Bread and CircusesThoughts on food, travel, politics, entertainment, culture, and other absurdities of human existence.Xeynonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04474304838394023507noreply@blogger.comBlogger211125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6391537151831331836.post-78095722596220519022011-03-01T23:53:00.000-08:002011-03-02T22:57:26.945-08:00Whose Line Is It Anyway?Batshit crazy former <em>Two-And-A-Half Men </em>star Charlie Sheen's, or batshit crazy murderous Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi's? Take your <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/quiz/2011/mar/01/muammar-gaddafi-charlie-sheen-quiz">guesses</a> here. I got 7/10.Xeynonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04474304838394023507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6391537151831331836.post-11825693895935157842011-02-22T02:07:00.000-08:002011-02-22T02:26:33.318-08:00Comparing Your SuperpowersWith the violence unleashed by Libyan strongman Moammar Qaddafi against citizens protesting his reign worsening significantly in the past few days, western powers have grown more critical in speaking out against the regime's tactics but have stopped short of calling for its outright ouster (as, in my opinion, they should). They've been much criticized for not taking a stronger stand, both in the Arab press and elsewhere. In my view this is fair criticism - we shouldn't cheer the concepts of democracy and human rights in the abstract and then fear ruffling a few authoritarian feathers when the time comes to stand up for them in practice.<br /><br />But for all the accusations of timidity and hypocrisy being leveled at the U.S. and the E.U., they're still infinitely better than the other emerging superpower on the block, China. <a href="http://ca.news.yahoo.com/china-urges-libya-restore-social-stability-soon-possible-20110222-003140-022.html">Witness the comments</a> of Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu, urging Libyan authorities to "restore social stability and normalcy as soon as possible and spare no effort to protect the safety of Chinese people, organizations and assets in Libya." Apparently widespread brutality and oppression aren't a problem from the point of view of the Chinese, only a continuation of the kind of messiness that might imperil Chinese interests in the country. We shouldn't be surprised, given that in ordering his armed forces to open fire on unarmed protesters with heavy weaponry Qaddafi appears to be taking a page straight out of the Tiananmen Square popular uprising suppression playbook, but it always helps to be reminded that as imperfect as the U.S. is, and as checkered a past as it has as a foreign interloper in the Middle East, it's still vastly preferable to the other alternatives as far as potential global hegemons go. At least we make a pretense of caring about things like human rights rather than just our own narrow interests.Xeynonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04474304838394023507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6391537151831331836.post-20147851426512724452011-02-20T16:01:00.000-08:002011-02-20T16:30:28.563-08:00Falling Out Of Love With The NFLIn the wake of former Chicago Bears safety Dave Duerson's suicide at age 50 comes word that <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/news/story?id=6141129">Duerson himself</a> was convinced he was suffering from premature cognitive degeneration as a result of his time playing football. Consider this along with the sad fates of other former players like Andre Waters and Mike Webster, and tell me again why the NFL should be playing eighteen brain-destroying regular season games instead of the current sixteen, as commissioner Roger Goodell and the owners want?<br /><br />It's true that the NFL's current labor dispute is an argument between billionaires and millionaires, and that there's no reason for the average work-a-day fan to be particularly sympathetic to one side or the other. But I'm in agreement <a href="http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/eagles/20110220_Phil_Sheridan__Blame_the_owners_in_NFL_labor_impasse.html?jCount=2#comments">with Phil Sheridan</a> that the owners are the bad guys here, for all the reasons he cites. They're a bunch of greedy, rent-seeking pigs who, having gotten obscenely rich partially by sucking off the government teat, are now upset that the agreement they've negotiated with their labor force won't allow them to get as even more obscenely rich as they'd like in the future. Goodell, the empty suit they've chosen as their spokesman, is a smarmy, glad-handing piece of shit, the embodiment of every negative stereotype about lawyers and politicians you've ever heard. He continues to insist that the league is really, deeply <em>concerned </em>about the safety of the players, and in particular their susceptibility to head injuries, while simultaneously loudly cheerleading the idea of an expanded regular season, a stance he claims was prompted by fans overwhelmingly clamoring for more regular season football even though there's <a href="http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-superbowl-appoll">little evidence</a> that such demand actually exists. The eighteen game season is all about Benjamins and anybody with half a brain realizes it. For Goodell to insist that no, it's really a question of <em>pleasing the fans</em>,<em> </em>only makes his glaring hypocrisy on the issue of player safety harder to stomach. <br /><br />Fuck you, Roger Goodell. And fuck you, Jerry Jones. And you, Jeff Lurie. And every other NFL owner as well. If you force a work stoppage by locking out the players, and come back with an eighteen game season, I am done with your league, as a paying customer and otherwise. My fondness for the game of football is not so great as to overcome my disgust at overweening greed, selfishness, and hypocrisy, nor my distaste for being unwillingly sold a product I have made clear I don't want, and while I have no illusions that one guy cutting off his streaming video package is going to make a difference in the financial calculations of your operation, it will allow me to retain my dignity as at least one person you can't take for a chump.Xeynonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04474304838394023507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6391537151831331836.post-59730355399239630832011-02-06T22:33:00.000-08:002011-02-06T22:36:11.602-08:00Wonders Of The Internet, cont'dJust how many times did Bill Murray re-live the same day in <em>Groundhog Day</em>? Simon Gallagher of the blog Obsessed With Film has <a href="http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/features/just-how-many-days-does-bill-murray-really-spend-stuck-reliving-groundhog-day.php">figured it out</a> so you don't have to. Note that I think that the last paragraph of his post - the one that says this ought not to be taken too seriously - probably makes the most salient point in the whole thing.Xeynonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04474304838394023507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6391537151831331836.post-4305957610113053172011-02-01T02:27:00.000-08:002011-02-01T02:28:49.396-08:00Celebrity Narcissism Overload WatchHow self-obsessed is actor James Franco? Evidently <a href="http://www.avclub.com/articles/james-franco-launches-college-course-on-james-fran,51116/">pretty damn much</a>.Xeynonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04474304838394023507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6391537151831331836.post-79217537752847807902011-01-01T02:29:00.000-08:002011-02-01T02:30:41.459-08:00Happy New YearHere's hoping 2011 is a happy, healthy year for everyone - except maybe Kim Jong Il, Robert Mugabe, and the like. It'll be a better year without them than with them.Xeynonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04474304838394023507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6391537151831331836.post-12345062512578267292010-12-19T21:04:00.001-08:002010-12-19T21:05:49.009-08:00Irony's A BitchI don't know if Julian Assange is guilty of rape or not - but I do know that he's the last person in the world who has a right to complain about someone <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/12/19/2010-12-19_julian_assanges_police_report_detailing_rape_charges_leaked_wikileaks_heads_lawy.html">inappropriately leaking sensitive information</a>. Live by the sword, die by the sword, Jules old buddy.Xeynonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04474304838394023507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6391537151831331836.post-72721350496577740592010-12-01T16:50:00.001-08:002010-12-01T23:45:31.986-08:00Assange On The RunWikiLeaks founder Julian Assange <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101201/ts_yblog_thelookout/wikileaks-founder-assange-the-center-of-worldwide-attention">has been placed on Interpol's most wanted fugitives list</a>, not, authorities insist, for the activities of his website, but for alleged rape and sexual assault in his adopted home of Sweden. Riiight. I'm no fan of Assange - he's a sanctimonious ass who cloaks himself in the mantle of free speech and postures as a human rights activist, while paying very little attention to the actual human costs of his info dumps. Furthermore, he's an awful hypocrite - transparency is fine and well, and an informed populace must hold its government's feet to the fire for democracy to function, but there's more than a bit of irony in this self-appointed revelator of government misdeeds that get innocent people killed being a man whose indiscriminate leaks <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38441360/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/">get innocent people killed</a>. But I have to think these charges may have been trumped up in an effort to bring him down. It's not like people <a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-10-29/news/ct-oped-1029-goldberg-20101029_1_julian-assange-wikileaks-wrong-question">haven't noted</a> the logic of taking him out (literally or figuratively).<br /><br />Despite my mistrust of the government, I can't muster too much sympathy for Assange. We need muckrackers - but we don't need zealots who see the world in black and white, with themselves in firm service of the latter. Absolute moral conviction is a very dangerous thing in the wrong people, and Assange is one of the wrong people. If he is brought down, hopefully whoever replaces him as the celebrity antigovernment activist <em>du</em> <em>jour </em>will be someone with a greater sensitivity to the power of free information to do harm as well as good.Xeynonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04474304838394023507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6391537151831331836.post-2342334627508445282010-11-14T17:39:00.000-08:002010-11-14T17:57:48.163-08:00On The American Political System And How To Fix ItP.J. O'Rourke offers <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/i-think-we-lost-election_516690.html?nopager=1">his suggestion</a>, caustic and brilliant as always.Xeynonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04474304838394023507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6391537151831331836.post-54381261715402687632010-11-12T23:15:00.000-08:002010-11-14T21:11:02.377-08:00Uwe Boll's New LowGerman <em>scheissmeister</em> Uwe Boll has made a career of making shitty movies - he directed four of the 100 worst-reviewed movies of the last decade according to <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/worst_of_the_worst/">RottenTomatoes.com's count</a> - but to this point you could at least say that he had the sense to turn his "talents" to the right kind of material, focusing as he has on lesbian vampires, zombie plagues, and other B-movie schlock. No more, however; Boll has decided that, like Stephen Spielberg, Roman Polanski, and Quentin Tarantino before him, he must <a href="http://blog.moviefone.com/2010/09/07/uwe-boll-sinks-to-new-lows-with-movie-about-auschwitz/">make a film about the Holocaust</a>. Furthermore, since previous films about the subject have been so tame - Disneyesque, practically - he wants to tell it to us straight: Auschwitz was a really terrible place, a "death factory". And he wants to show us, using the "talent" for "explicit depictions of violence" that he honed to oh-so-fine an edge by making all those latex zombie heads explode so realistically in his previous work. Unsurprisingly, preliminary reaction from critics has been <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/12/uwe-boll-auschwitz-film-causes-outrage">less than enthusiastic</a>. What's wrong, guys? You don't trust the guy responsible for <em>Alone in the Dark </em>and <em>In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale </em>to treat one of the most tragic and horrifying episodes in human history with the gravity and dignity it deserves?<br /><br />Personally, I'm mystified as to why any movie studio would be willing to back this project. Are there really people out there clamoring for a statement on the Holocaust from Uwe Boll? I have a hard time believing that, much less that people will be willing to pay to watch it. I'm a big believer in free speech. But every time Boll is allowed to make a movie, I become slightly less so. Perhaps this film will give a boost to the <a href="http://www.petitiononline.com/RRH53888/petition.html">online petition to stop Boll from making any more movies</a>.Xeynonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04474304838394023507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6391537151831331836.post-618181971257961512010-10-28T22:33:00.001-07:002010-10-28T22:55:55.703-07:00Ouch<a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2010/10/28/shock-poll-americans-think-bush-doing-a-better-job-than-obama-and-more/">A new poll indicates</a> that Americans would prefer George W. Bush in the White House to Obama. Given that Bush left office as one of the most unpopular presidents in memory only two years ago, and that Obama has pretty much made a living off of blaming him for everything but halitosis since his election in 2008, that's not a good sign for the president. It's a certain sign that he's going to have to come up with something better than "at least I'm not Bush!" as a reason for people to vote for him in 2012. Given that he appears intent on taking on the GOP and fighting what <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/251254/president-obamas-puzzling-political-strategy-after-midterms-stephen-spruiell">Republicans feel will be losing battles for him</a> after their presumptive takeover of the House on Tuesday, it's unlikely that he'll seek to position himself as an above-the-fray Clintonian triangulator either. I'm not sure that bashing the GOP for obstructionism is going to work, however, given that voters generally disapprove of his agenda and are poised to reward Republicans for trying to obstruct it over the past few years.Xeynonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04474304838394023507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6391537151831331836.post-78513200991218779652010-10-22T00:03:00.000-07:002010-10-22T00:03:01.098-07:00A Liberal Double Standard On Racially Charged Speech?Radley Balko of Reason makes a <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/21/juan-williams-lawn-jockeys-and">very fair point</a> re: response to the firing of NPR Juan Williams over comments he made about overcoming his personal fear of Muslims. Why is it that progressives feel it's okay to describe black people using language that, were it to come from a conservative, would (rightly) be decried as racist? I don't care what you think of Juan Williams' political views (and he doesn't seem like a staunch conservative to me), but referring to him using a racially loaded term like "lawn jockey" as Balloon Juice did is completely unacceptable.<br /><br />The African-American community is not monolithic. It's composed of individuals, complicated human beings with their own opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints, just like any other demographic is. Some blacks, such as Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, and (debatably) Williams, hold conservative views. So what? They're entitled to do so. It's a free country. For other blacks to accuse them of selling out their race for opposing racial profiling laws or affirmative action or what have you is one thing. I don't agree with it, but I can understand where the impulse comes from. But for white liberals to do it strikes me as rather presumptuous, even when they're not using language that ought to have died out along with minstrel shows. When they do use such language, it's not just presumptuous, it's offensive. Like most people I know, I often think that political correctness is too frequently taken to ridiculous extremes. But certain formulations should be out of bounds in enlightened discourse. Declaring that any black that thinks like the stereotypical rich white guy is either a self-interested race traitor or a useful idiot is one of them. If white liberals such as the editor of Balloon Juice really believe in racial equality (and they should), they ought to just accept that such a person is merely an individual who disagrees with them politically and happens to have dark skin.<br /><br />I don't think white progressives who talk like this are necessarily bigots, nor that most of them are cynical enough to deliberately exploit racial prejudice among either whites or blacks (Bill Clinton, with his comment on Barack Obama's "shucking and jiving" during the 2008 Democratic primaries, is one notable exception). But, for people who pride themselves on being racially enlightened, they come off as remarkably insensitve and simplistic in their thinking about racial issues. The black community does not belong to one party or ideology or the other. Many if not most may be liberals and vote Democratic, but that doesn't entitle Democrats/liberals to declare those who aren't and don't off the reservation. If there's going to be such a thing as an internal political debate among African-Americans, it should be left to them, and not subject to the self-important bleatings of white interlopers, conservative or otherwise.Xeynonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04474304838394023507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6391537151831331836.post-12316026403001769352010-10-21T22:17:00.000-07:002010-10-21T22:31:23.325-07:00We Have A BilboThe long-delayed, two-part Peter Jackson-produced adaptation of <em>The Hobbit </em>finally <a href="http://cinemablend.com/new/The-Hobbit-Cast-Announced-Martin-Freeman-Is-Bilbo-21356.html">has a cast</a>, certainly a gigantic step toward getting the damned thing made. As a card-carrying, badge-wearing, rafter-shouting Tolkien geek, I'm very excited about that. Many fans of Jackson's <em>Lord of the Rings </em>trilogy were disappointed when he announced he wouldn't be directing <em>The Hobbit </em>as well, but in tapping Guillermo del Toro he chose a replacement who proved with <em>Pan's Labyrinth </em>that he can make a fantastic fantasy film. In fact, I'd argue that he's a better fit for this material than Jackson is. Much as I admire the <em>LOTR </em>trilogy, Jackson's penchants for narrative bloat and visual excess had started to creep in by the end (for me at least, they ruined his follow-up effort <em>King Kong</em>), and I'm not sure I'd trust him to rein them in enough to do justice to Tolkien's story which, rich in action and adventure as it is, is an intimate, character-driven quest story at its heart. So long as Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis can be secured to reprise their roles as Gandalf and Gollum respectively (as is rumored), these movies should be excellent.Xeynonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04474304838394023507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6391537151831331836.post-59132815167183005542010-10-07T18:37:00.001-07:002010-10-07T18:48:40.035-07:00Anyone Care For Some Nevada-Style Fruitcake?That's what the state's Republican primary voters have served up in the person of Senatorial candidate Sharron Angle, as Angle's latest <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101007/ap_on_el_se/us_nevada_senate_angle">bizarre and inaccurate statement</a> in regards to Muslims in America attests. I'm no fan of Harry Reid's, and he's frankly among the Democrats I'd like to see ousted from the Senate. But I'm not at all enthused about his possible downfall given that his replacement would be a know-nothing loon like Angle.<br /><br />It's a testament to just out of sorts the Republican party is that in a year in which all the fundamentals are in their favor, they may blow their chance at capturing control of the Senate by allowing people like Angle and <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2267654/">fervent anti-masturbation advocate Christine O'Donnell</a> of Delaware to get nominations in imminently winnable races. There are plenty of legitimate critiques to be made of both the Democratic agenda under President Obama and the Bush-style big government Republicanism it displaced and in some ways continued. Why can't the Republicans find smarter, saner candidates to articulate those critiques?Xeynonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04474304838394023507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6391537151831331836.post-25348059123053414492010-10-04T18:03:00.000-07:002010-10-21T23:24:48.544-07:00Ugh...I'm back from Nagano, very sore and feeling the first symptoms of what I suspect is an uncoming cold, no doubt contracted as a result of running around sweat-covered in shorts and a tee-shirt in the chilly mountain air. Our team wasn't the worst there, but it wasn't the best either, and a draw that pitted us against the top three teams in the tournament in the group stage didn't help matters. We battled gamely but fell to the eventual champions on Sunday morning. At least I got to work on my goalkeeping skills - nothing improves you at that position like facing a lot of shots from skilled players.<br /><br />Now, I'm just hoping this cold doesn't turn out to be anything to bad. I hate getting sick, particularly in Japan as the damp climate and lack of central heating always seem to mean it takes me forever to recover.Xeynonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04474304838394023507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6391537151831331836.post-59698391161803364012010-10-01T23:02:00.000-07:002010-10-20T18:03:05.438-07:00Off To Play Some SoccerThis weekend I'll be traveling to Nagano-ken, one of Japan's loveliest prefectures, to participate in a nationwide amateur soccer tournament. I'm not expecting to win (I've never played with most of my teammates before, but based on past experience I doubt we'll be particularly good) - all I want is to run around, get some fresh mountain air, and have a good time. The best things in life really are free.Xeynonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04474304838394023507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6391537151831331836.post-60687393748327953662010-09-29T20:39:00.000-07:002010-09-29T21:16:39.350-07:00On Unnecessary TechnologyJimi Heselden, the owner of the company that manufactures the Segway, <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315518/Segway-tycoon-Jimi-Heselden-dies-cliff-plunge-scooters.html">has died after falling from a cliff while riding one of his machines</a>. Police are still investigating the cause of the accident, but irrespective of whether mechanical failure, driver error, or simple misfortune is to blame, the tragedy illustrates an important point about technology - that the benefits that it brings aren't always worth the attendant risks and other costs. Near as I can tell, all the Segway does is allow people able-bodied people to move at low speeds over somewhat uneven ground while retaining their balance. That's a function easy accomplished by... walking. Heselden didn't need an expensive, complex piece of machinery to enjoy a jaunt along a cliffside walking path on his property - he could have simply gone for a stroll, and it's unlikely he would have gone over the cliff if he had.<br /><br />This same dynamic plays out countless ways in lower stakes ways in everyday life. In my kitchen, I have a multi-part gadget that, depending on what attachment is being used, can be employed to cut vegetables, grate cheese, slice garlic, and the like. But it takes time to reconfigure it if I want to use it for a different function, the pieces are bulky, and it's a pain in the neck to wash, so it's not as if that versatility saves me any time, space, or effort. And if the cheese grating attachment, say, were to break, it would be more difficult and expensive to obtain a replacement component than merely to buy a new, separate cheese grater. This gadget, no matter its multi-functionality and nifty design, provides me precisely zero additional utility, and I wonder if I wouldn't be much better off with just a kitchen knife and an ordinary grater. Modern life is full of this kind of fundamentally unnecessary technology. Who really needs power windows or doors in a car, for example? It doesn't take much physical effort to turn a hand crank or pop a lock button, and with the old-fashioned option there are no unnecessary wires that can fray or circuits that can short out.<br /><br />The ultimate goal of technology is to make life easier for ourselves, or to enable us to do things we otherwise couldn't. It should not be to demonstrate our own ingenuity by making things as intricate as possible, or to achieve marginal gains in comfort or convenience at significant risk or cost. Greater complexity is only an advantage if it brings with it greater functionality. If it doesn't, all it means is a greater number of ways in which things can go wrong. The great French aviator, writer, and engineer Antoine de Saint-Exupery once said that "a designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away". Things like the Segway definitely fall under the heading of things that could safely be taken away.Xeynonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04474304838394023507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6391537151831331836.post-21546420996433914452010-09-24T08:05:00.000-07:002010-09-24T08:05:00.630-07:00Happy Birthday To MeToday, I turn 31. In contrast to last year's epochal "holy crap, I'm entering a new decade!" milestone and the year prior's depressing realization that I had just about used up my twenties, the decade of life that's supposed to be fun and carefree, this one doesn't feel like a big deal. In a weird way, being at the beginning of a decade, rather than the end of one, actually makes me feel <em>younger. </em>It helps that I'm actually looking forward to things like settling down into a permanent career and a more stable living situation at this point, having gotten somewhat bored of the rootlessness and irresponsible pleasure-seeking and self-exploration of youth. Doesn't make feel any less inclined to celebrate or throw myself a party, however.Xeynonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04474304838394023507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6391537151831331836.post-2037201622866772732010-09-23T00:11:00.000-07:002010-09-24T06:47:11.550-07:00Why Won't The Stupid Voters Listen When We Tell Them What They Want?<div>Apparently mystified by <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html">persistent public opposition</a> to his health care law, President Obama is blaming himself, not for signing a bill that started out unpopular and grew more so throughout the process of its passage, but for <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100922/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_health_overhaul">failing to sell it well enough</a>. Obama continues to argue that the reason people don't like the law is because they aren't aware of all the benefits it will bring them. But as Reason's Peter Suderman <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/23/wasnt-obamacare-supposed-to-be">points out</a>, there's a simpler and empirically better supported explanation - that the public is aware of the law's benefits, which contrary to what the President thinks the Democrats have talked up to no end, but is also aware of its costs, which the Democrats have rather assiduously avoided discussing, and does not consider the former worth the price of the latter.<br /><br />I haven't been polled, but I certainly fall into this category. I'm all for ensuring that people with pre-existing conditions can receive subsidized medical treatment for them if they can't afford it themselves, making health care plans more portable between places of employment, and the like. What I'm not for? The massive, cost-spiraling distortion in the health insurance market that forcing insurance companies to issue policies on which they are guaranteed to lose money will create. The higher taxes that will raise the price of new treatments and stunt medical innovation. The almost certain budget busting costs. The giant middle finger to personal freedom and constitutional rights that is the individual mandate. The unsavory backroom dealing that went into drafting the law. And most of all, the vast array of statistical gimmicks, euphemisms, blandishments, and outright lies via which the Democrats have tried to obscure all of this. I don't know how representative I am, but I know why I don't like the law, even though as a young person with a checkered travel history I stand to benefit from it in some ways, and it's not because I don't know what it's in. I'm not sure which is more offensive, the Democrats' arrogance in ramming this law through against the popular will, or their condescension in assuming that people oppose it because they're too stupid to know what's good for them.<br /><br />It's widely expected that the Democrats will get hammered in the upcoming midterm elections, and very likely lose their governing majority in at least one house of Congress. I suspect that much of that is a result of the fact that the economy continues to sputter. But if health care does prove to be a salient issue in this campaign and hurts the Democrats as it almost certainly will if that's the case, they deserve it. Whatever the merits, or lack therof, of the particular laws they pass, parties that overinterpret their mandate and/or take the electorate for a pliable mass of idiots need to suffer for it.<br /></div>Xeynonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04474304838394023507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6391537151831331836.post-33530154388406835972010-09-21T23:34:00.000-07:002010-09-29T19:28:56.415-07:00Remember, It's The Government's Money - You're Only Allowed To Borrow Some Of ItThe tax collection of the U.K. is <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/39265847/UK_Proposes_All_Paychecks_Go_to_the_State_First">proposing</a> a new policy under which all paychecks in the country would go first to the government, and only then be sent on to workers after the appropriate taxes had been levied. As will not come as any surprise to anyone who knows me, I hate this idea with a passion. I don't think it's some kind of first-step-towards-the-gulag power grab, as more histrionic rightists might call it. Britain is a country with a long and thoroughly ingrained democratic tradition, and absent some 1930s style economic apocalypse I doubt very much that totalitarianism will go on the march there. But I do think it's a dangerous and unnecessary expansion of the government's coercive power over economic activity, and betrays a troubling assumption at the heart of modern left-wing ideology - that the concerns of society as a whole trump the rights of the individual.<br /><br />The potential for conflict between individual interest and the well-being of society as a whole has long been one of the key sources of tension in democratic societies, and while I don't deny that there are certainly cases in which societal interest should be paramount - nobody should be allowed to dump toxic waste in a river at the expense of people downstream, for example - any free society which wishes to remain that way must respect the autonomy, political and economic, of the individual citizen. By and large, people do not go to work because they feel some abstract commitment to do their part for society, they go to work because they have personal financial concerns and desires which working helps them to address. The paying of salaries is fundamentally a private transaction between employers and employees, and the money an employee receives is recompense for his or her labor. It's not the state's business. I'm fine with requiring people to pay taxes, but the idea that the government has any legitimate right to see peoples' paychecks before they themselves do strikes me as deeply pernicious, and not something that should be entertained even in the name of ostensibly worthwhile goals such as greater government efficiency or cracking down on tax evasion. It's not by accident that Locke cited the right to personal property as one of the necessary conditions for free and just government - without a fundamental distinction between what belongs to the state and what does not, there are too many ways in which the government can abuse power and coerce the citizenry. Just ask all those people in China who were displaced from homes their families had inhabited for generations because the government wanted to build a dam or an athletic stadium and hey, family ties or no the land didn't belong to the people living on it anyway. Legitimizing the notion that the government first gets to seize whatever portion of a person's salary is currently deemed necessary, and only then must pass the money on to the person who earned it, erodes that distinction, and that's a bad thing.Xeynonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04474304838394023507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6391537151831331836.post-87437588763639889912010-09-19T05:49:00.000-07:002010-09-23T20:05:05.284-07:00A Pox On Both Their HousesIn the midst of a <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/17/why-is-everyone-picking-on-the">heated</a> <a href="http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/77774/how-tax-cuts-dupe-conservatives-case-study">exchange</a> with Jonathan Chait of the New Republic, <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">Reason</span> magazine writer Nick Gillespie makes a <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/17/why-is-everyone-picking-on-the">very simple but oft-forgotten point</a> - that one needn't have approved of the job George W. Bush did as President to disapprove of the one Barack Obama is doing. Like Gillespie, I happen to think Bush was an awful President, but that that doesn't change the fact that (on fiscal matters at least), Obama has been just as bad if not worse. Among the many things I disliked about Bush was his gross fiscal irresponsibility - not so much the substantial tax cuts or the massive spending hikes <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">per se</span>, but the fact that he pursued both simultaneously and with equal fervor, exploding a Federal deficit situation that had actually improved somewhat late in the Clinton years and leaving what was already going to be a long-term crunch looking likely to be much more painful when it finally hits. I did not vote for Obama because I wanted more of the same. But that's what we're getting, plus one - all of Bush's reckless spending, plus a little more from the long-time Democratic wish list.<br /><br />The chart Gillespie posts basically tells the whole story - out-of-control Federal spending is a bigger problem than the tax cuts when it comes to the deficit situation. Whether the Democrats decide to continue the cuts or let them lapse makes no difference - we're still screwed, because we are still spending too much money we don't have. It's just a question of degree. To committed members of Team Red or Team Blue, it be convenient to bash the other side with this reality when they hold power and impolitic to mention it when you do, but for people who care more about the future of the country than the fortunes of a particular political party or its associated ideology, it's a big effing problem that needs to be dealt with one way or another. I don't want to hear from the Democrats when they're criticized for deficit spending that Bush did it too - news flash guys, that's why we fucking voted his party out of office. I want somebody, <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">somebody</span>, to stand up and be an adult and tell the voting public what they need to hear - that we're on an unsustainable course, that changing it is probably going to entail both tax hikes <span style="FONT-STYLE: italic">and </span>spending cuts, and that people need to get used to that. As is, all I have is a choice of which conglomeration of connected special interests I let into the sty to begin feeding at the government trough. Pointing out that the Democrats are venal, short-sighted, and incompetent does not make one a Republican stooge any more than pointing out that the Republicans under Bush were venal, short-sighted, and incompetent made one a Republican stooge. It's possible for both sides to be wrong.<br /><br />As an indepedent, I take the fact that partisan hacks from both sides despise me as a sign that I'm on the right track. Government, to the extent that is necessary, should be about solving problems and creating the most favorable possible environment for private enterprise (in business and elsewhere) to flourish. It should not be about handing out publicly financed goodies to your friends like Halloween candy because they helped to get you elected. Too often, that is what it is about, and anger over that fact is why I think anti-incumbent fervor against politicians in <em>both</em> parties is so strong right now.<em> </em>Xeynonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04474304838394023507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6391537151831331836.post-44460815354393619542010-09-16T22:14:00.000-07:002010-09-16T23:25:47.006-07:00Poverty On The MarchIn recession-related bad news of the day, the U.S. poverty rate has hit a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/16/AR2010091602698.html?hpid=topnews">fifteen year high</a>, and the overall number of people living in poverty - about 44 million - is the highest it's ever been, at least since the Census began collecting poverty data in 1959. I suspect that political partisans on both sides will, after agreeing that this unfortunate milestone is in fact a result of the recession, make pinning the blame on the other side their first priority. Democrats will reiterate their long-standing assertion that it was Bush-era policies that led to the recession, conservatives will argue that Obama's supposed remedies haven't prevented it from getting worse - and neither will really consider the probable reality that if it is even reasonable to blame this situation on our politicians, both parties deserve some of it.<br /><br />I don't have much patience or sympathy for liberal rants about greedy Wall Street speculators and the like. More than anything else, the crash was the result of a credit market that due to a combination of regulatory fiat and monetary mismanagement put cash on loan into the hands of a lot of people that weren't in a position to pay it back. Even if the government had regulated Wall Street out of building their junk pyramid of credit default swaps and other dodgy financial instruments atop it, there was still a mountain of bad debt accumulating at the center of the economy. At worst, greedy bankers merely found a way to take that crap and make a profit by recycling it into a slightly different form of crap, one in which the <em>eau de impenetrable financial jargon </em>made the odor slightly less offensive. They made a bad problem worse, but they did not create it. As for the Democratic agenda, well - with a painful debt-induced fiscal crisis pretty clearly on the way, I don't think shoveling massive amounts of money out the door to be spent on ill-conceived pork projects in the name of economic stimulus or enacting a massive and massively flawed new entitlement like Obamacare were the best ideas. Billions of dollars later the stimulus has not stimulated - the economy is actually worse off now than the Obama administration claimed it would have been had nothing been done - and Obamacare has already gone up in price before even taking effect.<br /><br />However, I don't find the Republican claims that the way things were prior to the government tampering of TARP, the stimulus, etc. was reflective of the natural order of the free market, and that Barack Obama is some kind of uniquely pernicious socialist interloper, any less risible. The American economy has, both directly and indirectly, been shaped by government policies, many of them dumb ones, for a long time. George Bush was as much a promoter of the idea that people should own their own homes and look at them as investments and not just places to live as anyone, and did nothing to alter the market-distorting Clinton-era policies that led to the housing bubble. And no party that, when they had control of the government, started two optional, ill-planned, and unfunded foreign wars in addition to doing its own share of irresponsible domestic spending, deserves a platform to complain about the fiscal irresponsibility of the other side.<br /><br />In some sense, grim news like this is just the market adjusting to actual reality. Much of the wealth that fueled the pre-recession economy turned out to be illusory. It therefore stands to reason that some of the gains that had been made against poverty also turned out to be illusory. As a society, we were not producing enough tangible wealth to support our lifestyle, from the rich investment banker making hundreds of thousands of dollars trading financial phantasms on down to the struggling lower middle-class family that stretched to buy a house they couldn't really afford. Our leaders, in their eagerness to buy us off with extravagant promises on the one hand and their reluctance to insist that we pay anything like the real price for anything we wanted on the other, enabled this overstretch, and continue to do so. This is not a failure of one political party or ideology or the other - it's a failure of the entire system, the whole nexus of government, high finance, and big business, and the Democrats and Republicans are both too much a part of that system to recognize it. While I don't agree with a lot of what the Tea Party types have to say, their inchoate anger does at least make a bit more sense to me when viewed in this light.Xeynonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04474304838394023507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6391537151831331836.post-68742099796087338112010-09-14T20:11:00.000-07:002010-09-29T18:45:06.123-07:00It's In The Photograph...The last several days, I've finally gotten around to a project I'd been meaning to do for awhile - going through all my digital photographs, sorting and cataloguing them, and backing them up on CDs. It's been a laborious process, but one of the benefits has been reliving a lot of really great experiences that had started to blur around the edges a bit in my memory.<br /><br />When I was in my early twenties, I felt that taking pictures of everything dulled the in-the-moment experience of being someplace beautiful or doing something interest. I didn't, for example, take a camera with me when I went to visit my brother when he was studying abroad in Italy in 2003 and the two of us spent several days traveling in Spain, though I visited quite a few famous places on that trip. But the older I get, and the more experiences I accumulate, the more I find that what people my parents' age said when I was younger and too impatient to sit still to have my picture taken, that someday I'd appreciate the value of documenting life as it flies past - rings true. I didn't have a camera with me when I visited Gaudi's masterpiece, the Cathedral of the <em>Sagrada Familia </em>in Barcelona. And now, while I retain an overall impression of the place, I can recall little about the details of it. It's not a mistake I'm inclined to repeat - I always take a camera with me when I travel nowadays.Xeynonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04474304838394023507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6391537151831331836.post-53830885175989362192010-09-11T20:30:00.000-07:002010-09-15T20:53:02.067-07:00On September 11thFor some reason this year's anniversary of the September 11th attacks feels sadder and weighs more heavily on my mind than those in past years - perhaps because it occurs in the wake of the summerlong "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy, with Americans egged on by a crazy Florida preacher and flag-burning Muslim protesters abroad antagonizing each other with one-upped acts of mutual rage and contempt. I'd like to think that tragedies like 9/11 would compel people on all sides of a conflict to reflect on violence, on its causes in the world, on the self-perpetuating and all-consuming cycle of retribution it engenders, and to step away from it. But sadly, if there is one thing we know about human beings it is that aggression, self-righteousness, and intolerance come naturally to us while open-mindedness, understanding, and compromise are things at which we must work very hard to obtain. I understand aggrievement and anger very well, but I do not understand what people who do things like burn qurans or stomp on American flags hope to achieve by expressing their aggrievement and anger in such inflammatory ways. It only widens the gap between people and makes it easier for them to justify maiming each other in the future.Xeynonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04474304838394023507noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6391537151831331836.post-43617497243881658212010-09-09T17:20:00.001-07:002010-09-15T20:58:39.733-07:00An (Altogether Too Long) Post On The Upcoming NFL SeasonWith the 2010 NFL season about to kick off and every football writer in America and their brother offering their preseason predictions, I figured now would be a good time to put myself on record as to my own take on the upcoming season. I don't have the time or inclination to do a multi-page, team-by-team or division-by-division writeup (and there are plenty of that kind of thing out there, written by people more knowledgable than I am), so I'll just make a few random observations and predictions (of a probalistic nature - I hate pundits who say X or Y <em>will </em>happen).<br /><br /><strong>Team Most Likely To Win The Super</strong> <strong>Bowl:</strong> Indianapolis. Not a sexy or particularly outre pick, but as long as they have Peyton Manning, you know they're going to finish the season 12-4 or 13-3, with homefield advantage throughout the playoffs, and more often it's a team with that profile that wins it all. Lots of pundits seem to be talking themselves into the Jets, Ravens, Packers, or Cowboys, but as of right now the Colts have a better combination of quarterback and pass defense than all those teams, and I think a good quarterback and a good pass defense are what you need to win it all.<br /><br />Runner-up: New Orleans. I think they'll be better than most recent defending champs have been, as have a relatively easy schedule for an elite team and can still roll out plenty of weapons on offense. They'll have trouble winning on the road in the playoffs if they don't get home field advantage, however.<br /><br /><strong>Team Most Likely To Have The #1 Pick In The 2011 NFL Draft: </strong>Tampa Bay. They have a shaky-looking second year quarterback in Josh Freeman, a coach who appeared overmatched in his first season at the helm last year in Raheem Morris, a defense that isn't very good, and a pretty difficult schedule. Not a good combination.<br /><br />Runner-up: Buffalo. This team is a train wreck, and pretty much everything I said about the Bucs applies to them as well. Call it a toss-up.<br /><br /><strong>Team Most Likely To Fail To Live Up To Its Preseason Press Clippings: </strong>Dallas. Not so much because they aren't a good team (they are), but because, as always with the Cowboys, the hype far outstrips the actual level of accomplishment on the field to this point. Everyone's making a big deal of Tony Romo finally winning a playoff game last year, but beating a banged-up Eagles team at home is not that much of an accomplishment - particularly when you go on the road the next week and get stomped as the 'Boys did in the divisional round game at Minnesota. Dallas enjoyed nearly perfect health among its key players last season, a circumstance that is unlikely to repeat, and as good as their first units are they are long in the tooth at a few key spots and severely lacking in depth. They don't look like a 13-3 powerhouse to me - a 9-7 or 10-6 bubble team/Wild Card entry is more like it - and I'd be very surprised if they're the NFC's representative in the Super Bowl.<br /><br />Runner-up: New York Jets. The way everyone is talking about them, you'd think they were a powerhouse coming off a 14-2 Super Bowl season, rather than a 9-7 team that benefited from a massive dose of good luck to even get into the postseason, then got lucky again in drawing a pair of playoff opponents that they matched up very well against. I don't like the outsized, only-in-New-York hype, I don't like the distractions created by standout cornerback Darrelle Revis' training camp holdout and the presence of cameras recording for HBO's <em>Hard Knocks</em>, I don't like the fact that they jettisoned several of their most respected veteran players in the offseason, I don't like Mark Sanchez, who looks the part but on the field is still a mediocre quarterback at best, and most of all, I don't like blowhard coach Rex Ryan painting a massive target on his team's backs by declaring them Super Bowl favorites. This has all the hallmarks of a 6-10 type implosion as far as I can see.<br /><br /><strong>2010 Playoff Team Most Likely To Take A Massive Step Back: </strong>Arizona. From a team that was only 9-7 last year, they lost two of their best defenders in linebacker Karlos Dansby and safety Antrel Rolle and their second best offensive weapon in receiver Anquan Boldin. Oh, and at quarterback they downgraded from borderline Hall-of-Famer Kurt Warner to Browns castoff Derek Anderson. In fact, I don't think the word "downgrade" is quite strong enough to describe the dropoff there. A downgrade is going from a T-Bone steak to ground chuck. This is more like going from a T-Bone to beef-flavored Alpo.<br /><br />Runner-up: Minnesota. Between star receiver Sidney Rice going down with an injury that will keep him out for half the season, his cohort Percy Harvin being plagued by migraines, and Favre already dealing with a gimpy ankle without taking a single hit, things are not off to a good start in Minnesota. They will probably be able to remain competitive by handing the ball off to Adrian Peterson 25 times a game and leaning on their defense, but I don't think a repeat of last year's NFC Championship Game appearance is likely.<br /><br /><strong>2010 Also-Ran Most Likely To Take A Massive Step Forward: </strong>New York Giants. This is a talented team that suffered a rash of injuries at some key spots last year, particularly on defense, and wasn't able to compensate for the weaknesses those losses created, but they were 12-4 in 2008 and off to a very good start last year before the injury bug hit. If they stay healthy, they'll field a solid defense and an offense that can move the ball both on the ground and through the air, and for my money they - not the Cowboys - should be the favorites in the NFC East going into the season.<br /><br />Runner-up: Atlanta. After a playoff season in 2008 they slipped up last year, partially as a result of losing quarterback Matt Ryan for a few key midseason games, but I think they'll be back to playoff contention this season. Like the Saints, they play a relatively soft schedule, and with most of their key players younger guys, the predicted future performance curve is still sloping upwards.<br /><br /><strong>Player Most Likely To Win The MVP Award:</strong> Peyton Manning, Indianapolis. Again, the boring pick is the smart one.<br /><br />Runner-up: Aaron Rodgers, Green Bay. Nobody doubts that he is surrounded by a lot of talent and will put up numbers. To be in the conversation, however, he's going to have to guide the Packers to a dominant season, something I think he's well positioned to do with the Vikings in position to fall off (see above).<br /><br /><strong>Player Most Likely To Win The Offensive Player Of The Year Award: </strong>Chris Johnson, Tennessee. A ridiculously talented running back getting the ball behind a very good offensive line for a team that loves to run the ball is a good recipe for a monster statistical season. The media also frequently gives this award to players who have great individual seasons for bad or mediocre teams, which makes Johnson a prime candidate.<br /><br />Runner-up: Drew Brees, New Orleans. He should have a huge season statistically even if the Saints don't repeat as champs.<br /><br /><strong>Player Most Likely To Win The Defensive Player Of The Year Award: </strong>Darrelle Revis, New York Jets. This one's a bit difficult to handicap, as perennial favorites like Ed Reed, Troy Polamalu, and Ray Lewis have been taken out of the conversation by injury or age-related decline. I'll go with Revis, who should be motivated to prove that he's the best cornerback in the league.<br /><br />Runner-up: DeMarcus Ware, Dallas. I basically picked him out of a hat containing a half-dozen names, but he's an elite player in his prime who should get plenty of chances to do what he does best (rush the passer), so he has to be a favorite.<br /><br /><strong>Player Most Likely To Win The Offensive Rookie Of The Year Award: </strong>Ryan Mathews, San Diego. He'll get he bulk of the carries for the Chargers, who figure to need to run the clock out with a lead a few times, so he should end up with decent rushing totals even though they're not a great running team.<br /><br />Runner-up: C.J. Spiller, Buffalo. He's perhaps more talented than Mathews, but he's playing for a vastly inferior team and is likely to be doing a lot of pass blocking as the team scrambles to catch up.<br /><strong></strong><br /><strong>Player Most Likely To Win The Defensive Rookie Of The Year Award: </strong>Ndamukong Suh, Detroit. He was clearly the best player in college football last year, and only the importance of franchise quarterbacks kept him from going #1 overall in the draft. He should play every down for the Lions and have an impact against both the run and the pass.<br /><br />Runner-up: Brandon Graham, Philadelphia. Perhaps it's my Eagles homerism showing through, but I think Graham, who's already won a starting job on merit, is going to have a very good season rushing the passer opposite Trent Cole.<br /><br /><strong>Breakout Player: </strong>Shonn Greene, New York Jets. He'll be the feature back for a team that has a good offensive line and loves to run the ball. 'Nuff said.<br /><br />Runner-up: Kevin Kolb, Philadelphia. I doubt the Eagles made a mistake in trading in the aging Donovan McNabb for Kolb as their starting quarterback, and by the end of the year I think we'll all see why. Or perhaps, as an Eagles fan, I merely hope so.<br /><br /><strong>Player Likely To Decline</strong>: Favre. He's always been turnover prone, even when he was surrounded by great players in Green Bay, so I have to assume last year's low interception totals were an aberration rather than the result of a sudden, late-career epiphany about the wisdom of protecting the football. Plus, as previously mentioned, there are the injury concerns (both his and his teammates').<br /><br />Runner-up: McNabb. As an Eagles fan, I've watched him decline somewhat in effectiveness the last few years as he lost the elite mobility that made him so dangerous earlier in his career, and that was when he was protected by above average lines and had the likes of DeSean Jackson and Brent Celek to throw the football to. In Washington he's playing behind a very iffy line and aside from a decent pair of tight ends is throwing to one of the worst receiver corps in football. That makes it rather unlikely he continues to have the success he's had to this point.<br /><br /><strong>Coach On The Hot Seat: </strong>Eric Mangini, Cleveland. Not so much because of anything he's done or failed to do to this point, but because the front office that hired him is no longer around and Team President Mike Holmgren and G.M. Tom Heckert might well look to bring in their own guy as soon as they have a reasonable pretext for doing so.<br /><br />Runner-up: Wade Phillips, Dallas. No matter how often Jerry Jones expresses his confidence in Phillips, I can't see him keeping the coach if his beloved Cowboys fail to live up to expectations.<br /><br /><strong>Assistant Most Likely To Be A Hot Head Coach Candidate For The 2011 Season: </strong>Mike Zimmer, Cincinnati. He turned the Bengals into a pretty good defensive team last year. He's been successful in previous stops as a defensive coordinator as well. If Cincy returns to the playoffs this year I expect he'll be a top candidate.<br /><strong></strong><br />Runner-up: Gregg Williams, New Orleans. He failed in his first gig as a head coach in Buffalo, but then most coaches seem to fail in Buffalo. If he can keep the Saints' defense effective enough to complement their explosive offense, he should get some calls.<br /><strong></strong><br /><strong>Strategic Wrinkle Most Likely To Take The League By Storm This Year: </strong>I think the Wildcat package is starting to get played out - defensive coordinators seem better equipped to deal with it at this point and its effectiveness has started to decline. So I'm going to go with passing game gimmicks along the lines of what the Saints did last year - running lots of odd spread formations with bunched receivers, unbalanced alignments, and such to try to create mismatches.<br /><br />Runner-up: Who knows - probably something on defense designed to counteract the spread.<br /><br /><strong>The One Prediction I Will Make With A High Degree Of Confidence: </strong>Most, if not all, of my other predictions will turn out to be incorrect.<br /><br />As for my team, the Eagles - they are talented, but also very young, so I am expecting a season with some ups and downs along the way. I'd guess they finish something like 9-7, with a shot at the playoffs if things break right, but as long as guys like Kolb, LeSean McCoy, Jeremy Maclin, Brandon Graham, and Nate Allen show improvement by the end of the year, I'll be happy. This team is being built to make a run at it all from 2012 on, not this year.Xeynonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04474304838394023507noreply@blogger.com0