Joust The Facts

Remodeling In Green

The Boston Celtics said goodbye to an aging "Big Three" member last year (oddly replacing him with another aging shooter), and this year, with a draft day agreement with the Brooklyn Nets, have said goodbye to the other two.  Word is out that the Nets and Celtics have agreed to a huge deal, with Paul Pierce and Keving Garnett headed to Brooklyn, along with said aging shooter (Jason Terry) and 5 players and 3 first round draft picks headed to Beantown.

First off, lets stipulate that Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen weren't getting any younger.  KG is 37, and by the end of next season will be 38 and have finished 19 years of 80 game (or more) seasons.  Pierce finished 15 years with the Celts this year at age 35, and will be 36 in October.  Allen, whose 3 point jumper saved the Heat in Game 6 of the NBA finals, will turn 38 in a few weaks.  From that standpoint alone, bagging three first round picks for three players on the downside of dwindling careers is brilliant.

Second, lets further recognize that short of abducting the Thunder's Kevin Durant or the Miami Heat owner deciding to go Charley O.Finley and suddenly selling his top talent (Lebron James) to Boston, these Celtics would not be hoisting a trophy next June.

Finally, lets also recognize that having top draft picks is the only way to get that top talent, the kinds of players who can build and maintain a consistent winner.  Finishing at 46-36 and losing in the second round won't give you a high enough draft pick to get the potentially stunning talent needed to do that.  Danny Ainge now has 2 first round picks next year (Boston, Brooklyn), 2 in 2015 (Boston, LA Clippers) and 2 in 2016 (Boston, Brooklyn).  It doesn't seem that the Clippers and Nets picks will be that high, but theirs should and hey, you never know.

I'm sad to see KG, Ray and Paul go.  The basketball they played during their time on the parquet was a beautiful thing.  The '07-08 through '09-10 seasons were outstanding, and even '10-11 was great.  When they traded for Ray Allen before the '07 draft I got chills.  My team just picked up my favorite player.  When they picked up Kevin Garnett later that offseason those chills return.  My team just picked up my second favorite player.  Doc Rivers, already departed to LA to coach the Clippers, made it mesh beautifully.  I'll miss KG's intensity. I'll look for him pounding his forehead against the basket padding and tying his drawstring on his shorts before the opening tip, and it won't be there.  I'll miss Pierce's cool under pressure, always willing and able to take the big shot in the big moment.  And I already missed Allen's reliable and opponent-depressing daggers from the 3 point stripe.

Danny Ainge picked up two 7 footers last night, one of whom can step out from the basket.  He re-acquired a couple of guys he should never have let go - Kris Joseph, the better of the two ballers he took from Syracuse last year and Marshon Brooks, a mercurial and talented scorer out of Providence.  Brooks was traded in a puzzling draft day deal for Jajuan Johnson of Purdue.  Johnson never panned out, and is mired in the NBADL.  And he still has Rondo, Jared Sullinger, Brandon Bass, Jeff Green, Terrence Williams.  He needs another good point guard for next year, but there's something there to work with.

So it's so long, Big Three.  And thanks for the memories, and the champion-caliber play.  And thanks for the championship. 

You Want More? I Don't - The Joust The Facts Endorsement

Exactly four years ago, on October 30, 2008, The Joust The Facts endorsement for President of the United States reviewed the lack of accomplishment, inexperience, nebulous feel-good gestalt and nefarious associations of then-Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.  It's worth revisiting not only to see what the problems with his candidacy were four years ago, but mainly to see just how obvious those deficiencies were to even a political neophyte like myself.  I don't think the Wall Street Journal or NY Times will be calling me looking for their next political columnist.  Particularly not the Times.  But here's a snippet - see if anything rings true to you, given what we now know.

Sen. Barack Obama has run a very strong campaign, knocking off first the presumptive nominee when the campaign started, Sen. Hillary Clinton, and now standing on the doorstep of a general election win over war hero and Republican nominee Sen. John McCain.  Mr. Obama delivers an elegant speech, professing a politics of "hope" and "change."  While both are nebulous concepts at best they do resonate.  "Hope" and "change" make him look and sound forward-looking and optimistic.  But campaigns do not make the candidate.  Rather, the candidate is what he is, and all of the pomp and window dressing and platitudes and Greek columns in the world can't change that.

If that is indeed the case, then what is Sen. Obama?  He's only been in the public eye since 2004, when he stepped onto the stage at the Democratic Convention wowing the audience with his speech on his way to the Senate.  The media hasn't helped us to know more, failing to scrutinize adequately his many questionable past associations and pronouncements, glossing over some, excusing some, ignoring some...

We know that Mr. Obama has had quite a few associations with Marxists.  Yes, I used the word.  He has espoused redistributionist economics, in his tax plan where income tax credits can go to those who pay no income taxes, in his discussion of the civil rights movement in 2001 in the now famous tape, and in his off the cuff explanation to Joe The Plumber.  It is hard to argue that his economic philosophy is not more socialist than free-market, and even harder to argue that that philosophy will lead to rising incomes, rising GDP, and more jobs.  Having seen stagflation before, I don't want to see it again.  His energy policy is blind to the need for additional drilling and nuclear power, the latter of which is quite 'green', certainly green enough for France.

Let me emphasize that important line:

It is hard to argue that his economic philosophy is not more socialist than free-market, and even harder to argue that that philosophy will lead to rising incomes, rising GDP, and more jobs.

Check, check and checkmate.  America has seen in Obama's economic stewardship falling incomes, anemic and stagnant GDP growth, and job creation insufficient to bring back the lost jobs from the recession.  Some of Mr. Obama's job claims were dependent on a new metric, jobs "created or saved."  Here's a convenient video of the deception involved in Mr. Obama's claims of robust job creation, courtesy of Political Math.

And with that record we now have $6 Trillion more in national debt, in just 4 years time.  So economically his record has been less than stellar, much as I had anticipated four years ago.

How about in terms of foreign policy? Well, there's alienating our ally, Poland, in several instances; dissing another staunch ally, Israel, again several times; looking towards increased flexibility after November 6; bowing to a Saudi royal, among others.  And, oh yeah, Benghazi.  Benghazi?  Benghazi.  If you read the New York Times this may be news to you, but back on September 11 four Americans including two heroic ex-Navy Seals and the Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, were murdered by terrorists in the American consulate there.  Help was called for.  Help could have arrived.  Help didn't.  We won't get into Iraq and Afghanistan here.

Recall, also, that Mr. Obama's signature achievements in his four years are the 'stimulus,' ObamaCare, killing Osama Bin Laden and saving GM.  Let's go in reverse order.  "Saving" General Motors meant transferring wealth from bondholders and taxpayers to the company's autoworkers,  and the company is still on shaky footing - look at the sales of the Volt, for example.  And yes, Bin Laden is dead.  The intelligence community found him, Seal Team 6 got the job done, and Mr. Obama gave the operation the thumbs up.  Terrorist fighter?  Benghazi!

ObamaCare is one of the worst monstrosities foisted upon American citizens imaginable.  Nancy Pelosi famously said that we had to pass the bill to know what was in it.  Well, now we know, and we don't like it.  Bottlenecks, waiting lists, doctor shortages, losing your doctor, paying more for insurance, paying for insurance coverages you don't need or want, loss of freedom, IPAB.  The administration knows what medicine you need, and they want you to swallow it and like it.  Oh, and there's $716B less for Medicare, by the way.

The 'stimulus' didn't stimulate, and it's not because it was too small.  What, we needed $12 trillion in new debt, not just $6 trillion?  Private businesses hiring private individuals to grow their businesses is the engine that moves the economic wheels, and with the specters of ObamaCare, fiscal cliffs, exploding debt and blossoming over-regulation, that just isn't happening.

So we can see that Mr. Obama lived up to expectations here at Joust The Facts.  He failed.  But what about Mitt Romney?  Well, he has much more of a record than Mr. Obama did four years ago, having successfully governed Massachusetts, a deeply blue state, as a Republican governor.  His RomneyCare is bad, but it pales in comparison to the much more coercive ObamaCare, and it may have been the best he could have done with a legislature that, being 85% Democrat, could pass what it wanted and override his veto.  He stepped in and righted the troubled Salt Lake City Olympics from 2000-02.  He has been a successful executive.

The economy needs to have politicians stop playing politics with it, and Mr. Romney knows this.  Mr. Obama came in and turned his back on Republicans from the start; huge congressional majorities his first two years didn't improve that attitude.  Mr. Romney won't be so dismissive.  Entitlements need reform.  Mr. Obama didn't tackle this necessary task during his first two years with his huge majorities, and he didn't do so with a Republican House.  Mr. Romney will.

Mitt Romney knows that businesses need certainty, the ability to see their future and plan for it.  Mr. Obama sees business as a large piggy bank that should be required to hire workers and pay higher taxes, or as a way to push an ideological agenda in ways that help his bigger donors.  Mr. Romney is a capitalist, and conveniently the American economic soul is also capitalist.  The debates did Mr. Romney the primary service of exposing his reasonableness to a wider audience.  His jump in the polls after the first debate is attributable to the fact that he didn't and doesn't look and sound like the soulless caricature of him touted by the Obama campaign.  He looked ... what's the word ... presidential.

And indeed he is.  Joust The Facts issues a hearty and hopeful endorsesment of Mitt Romney for president.

Did The Sox Just Blunder Again?

Unfortunately we'll know the answer to that question only after one year, or two, as we see how the managerial tenure of John Farrell turns out.  It seems the Sox came to an agreement with the Toronto Blue Jays to procure the services of the Jays' manager, former Red Sox pitching coach John Farrell.

Farrell, who received a three-year contract, will be introduced at Fenway Park on Monday or Tuesday.

The 50-year-old Farrell was the Red Sox pitching coach from 2007-10 before becoming the manager of the Blue Jays. Farrell was a modest 154-170 in two seasons, but the Red Sox believe he has the skills to lead the team back from its worst season in decades.

The Red Sox were 69-93 under Bobby Valentine, a season marked by underperformance, injuries, and controversy. Valentine’s style did not mesh well with general manager Ben Cherington, his coaching staff or with veteran players grown accustomed to the protective ways of former manager Terry Francona....

The Red Sox formally interviewed Padres special assistant Brad Ausmus, Orioles third base coach DeMarlo Hale, Yankees bench coach Tony Pena, and Dodgers third base coach Tim Wallach, and were impressed with all four. But their focus was on Farrell from the beginning of the process.

Hiring Farrell from the Blue Jays is acceptable from the compensation standpoint, as the Sox won't be giving up too much.  Mike Aviles is a terrific team player, who plays hard all the time and produces in the clutch at times, but his stats don't jolt you off the page.  So there's that.

And I don't have the sense of dread I did when they hired Valentine.  As I described him just before the hiring, in what was now a prescient post,

Just what the team needs, a self-promoting gadfly manager who has failed everywhere else.

Valentine's failures were legion.  He lost the team early, lost more of them as time went on, opened his mouth in frequent and unfortunate ways, and proved not to be the "smartest man in baseball" when making moves on the diamond.  His managing moves were often inexplicable.  Pinch hitting for Iglesias with two strikes already on him?  Seriously?

Looking at the list of the interviewees, I think I might have leaned toward three of the other four ahead of Farrell.  Bringing back Tony Pena, a former Manager Of The Year in Kansas City, and after a brief tenure in New York, would have made sense.  Brad Ausmus is widely regarded as sharp, and with a bright future in managing.  Both are former catchers who understand pitchers, pitching, and calling a game, all vital to a winning team.  DeMarlo Hale was with the Sox as a coach in various positions in the minors for about 9 years, then came back as a third base coach and bench coach for 5 more.  As a result, he was with the team during Terry Francona's successes and also with the Orioles last year during their own resurrection.

Farrell's record in Toronto has not impressed.  Toronto was 73-89 this year, four games better than the woeful Bostonians.  The prior year his team was an even .500, 81-81.  The pitching in Boston, after they finished first in pitching in 2007 winning the Series, steadily deteriorated under his watch.  (On the other hand, it deteriorated even further without him, so there's that.)

I hope I'm wrong.  I don't have the feeling of dread and catastrophic error that I did when Valentine was hired, but I would have rather seen a new face like an Ausmus, or a Ryne Sandberg or Sandy Alomar Jr. come in to settle the turmoil.  When you're starting from an epic failure of a year, at 69-93, you can take a chance on a bright light in the distance, hoping that as it comes into focus it turns out to be a star.

Reviewing The Draft - Bleed Green Edition

Among the players available when the Boston Celtics picked at #21/#22 in the first round were a great shooter in 2 guard John Jenkins, an hyperathletic 6'6" point guard Tony Wroten Jr., an offensively talented quick big man in Arnett Moultrie, a mobile and athletic big in Perry Jones III, a 6'10" small (!) forward in Quincy Miller, a very athletic small forward in Quincy Acy, and a sharp and hard working seven-footer in Festus Ezeli.  The Celts brain trust read the press clippings of Ohio State's ground-based big man Jared Sullinger and selected "the guy with the bad back at #21.  Then at #22 They selected one of the more puzzling and enigmatic bigs in Syracuse seven-footer Fab Melo.  Sigh.

I was listening to Celtics draft coverage on their home cable sports network, Comcast SportsNet, and none of the individuals providing commentary liked the idea of selecting Sullinger when first queried.  As the night wore on and Sullinger dropped in the draft, some changed their tune.  I didn't.  He was a very good college player precisely because his size and strength overwhelmed most opponents.  That doesn't happen in the NBA.  I hope he proves me wrong, gets up and down the court quickly enough to run with Rajon Rondo and Avery Bradley, is able to post up down low in the pros like he did in college, and is able to play at least a little above the rim.  But I would rather have seen the team add athletic bodies rather than just a big one.

Melo is another story.  The kid has potential, but came into his freshman season at Syracuse woefully unprepared and inadequately able to push himself.  To his credit he improved dramatically between year one and year two in his fitness, ability to run, and understanding of the game.  Unfortunately that simply moved him from Complete Bust to Serviceable Big Man on a team that played zone and had so many wing scorers that the middle was vacant for him.  He had academic issues, along with some others - ahem - and it's doubtful that a few million dollars in his bank account will improve his motivation and character.  I hope he proves me wrong, too.  He has bigger upside than Sullinger, but is also a riskier pick because you don't know where his head is.

In the second round you simply hope you strike gold, and the Celtics may have.  Kris Joseph is a talented small forward, though his shooting is erratic, and his handle could use some work.  Both are things he can improve, and it won't hurt him a bit to understudy Paul Pierce.

I think I might have preferred Moultrie and Perry if you wanted two bigs with those two picks.  I didn't think, from my reading, that either of those would be still on the board at that point.  Neither of the first round picks makes the C's more athletic, and quickness in the NBA is a lethal weapon.  While I hope I'm wrong, I have the sinking feeling that with these two picks the Celtics have rolled the dice, and may have crapped out. 

One aside/possible ray of sunshine:  I notice that West Virginia forward Kevin Jones went undrafted.  If I were Danny Ainge I'd be bringing him in for a free-agent tryout ASAP!

7/1/12 0800: Bummer.  Kevin Jones signed by Cleveland.  The Celtics better hope that they can sign both Jeff Green and Brandon Bass now. Scott Machado, perhaps, as a Rondo understudy?  On the other hand, the Celts may be fine if last years second rounder, E'twaun Moore, can step up his game. He's a good shooter, and just needs to get a bit more creative with the ball.

A Big Day Today

I know there are a few other minor news stories coming today, with, for example, the upcoming contempt of Congress vote on Attorney General Eric Holder, and another story of narrow interest.  Something having to do with health care, I think. But the big news is really in the world of sports.  It's NBA draft time!  (/sarc)

The Boston Celtics, who with a depleted roster put up a substantial challenge against the Miami Heat, have the 21st and 22nd picks in this years first round (and #51 in the second).  I'm pretty sure Danny Ainge isn't looking for my advice, but he's going to get it.  Barring a trade he's not going to come up with one of the consensus top 15 players, and of those 15 there are really only a few that would provide an instant boost.  So I'd stick with the two picks he has and try to come up with guys that can a) step into a playing role immediately off the bench, and 2) have the potential to develop into something more special.  I was never very good at indexing.  Of course, someone may fall down the board, and if that someone is Perry Jones III you grab him.  I don't think he'll fall to #21, but you never know.

Here are five players that I think meet both of those judgements. 

1. The St. Bonaventure forward Andrew Nicholson is a big guy with both a post game and a shooters touch from outside.  I'd like him to be a bit more of an athlete, but he can score inside and out and will give them instant help.  An NBA fitness program will help his explosiveness.  He may not be a star, but he can in the future be a starter.

2. One problem for the Celtics this year was that of their primary players only Rajon Rondo and Avery Bradley were sufficiently explosive off the dribble to get to the basket.  Paul Pierce does it more with footwork and guile than quickness at this point in his career.  Washington's Tony Wroten can give them that.  He's a very good ball handler, has quickness to spare, finds the open man, and can get to the basket with length.  At 6 foot 6 he's a ball handling guard that be an immediate piece of the team and can potentially be a star if he can nail down a jump shot.

3. The same goes for Moe Harkless of St. Johns.  An explosive athlete with length, he's only 19 years old and can be a star in the future.  Right now most draft boards have him going in the high teens, but if he falls just a couple of slots to 21 you've got to grab him.

4. The best shooter in the draft is John Jenkins of Vanderbilt.  It's nice to have Ray Allen draining threes when Rondo, Paul Pierce or Kevin Garnett kick the ball back out.  It's nice to have a shooter whom the defense can't leave for a second, because that's all the opening he needs.  It opens the floor for everyone else.  If you're not going to re-sign Ray Allen, then you need a John Jenkins.

5. Kevin Jones of West Virginia is simply a player.  He is a small power forward who can hit threes, can post up bigger players inside, can rebound over players with more length, is fearless, and plays hard all the time.  He's built like Dwight Howard, three inches shorter but a better shooter.  Look at the success of Kenneth Faried in Denver, and you've got Kevin Jones.

I like a few other players at #21/#22 a lot, and wouldn't be terribly disappointed if those are selected.  Quincy Miller of Baylor is a solid scorer inside and out and handles the ball like a guard at 6'9".  Festus Ezeli of Vanderbilt has good size inside, can rebound and block shots and would be a good finisher for Rondo's dishes.  Doron Lamb of Kentucky can shoot, but I worry about his ability off the dribble.

I'm not big on Royce White of Iowa State.  He's very good, but the fear of flying (NBA teams fly a lot!) and other issues worry me.  And I'm definitely not big on Fab Melo of Syracuse.  I don't think he's a good fit on a Celtics team that relies on smart basketball with quick decision making.  He doesn't have great hands, and he doesn't run the court that well.

With that #51 pick I think there should be a few available that could help.  Tennessee Tech's Kevin Murphy is a very good shooting guard.  Marquette's Darius Johnson-Odom can get to the basket with the best of them and handle the rock.  And for a sleeper how about Rakim Sanders of Fairfield, and athletic shooting guard at 6'5"?

I'll be watching tonight.

Please, Not Valentine

The Red Sox, having stayed in house with Ben Cherington as GM, are now apparently on the verge of signing Bobby Valentine to manage the team in 2012.

That would make management 0 for 2 on the big decisions so far this offseason. Just what the team needs, a self-promoting gadfly manager who has failed everywhere else.  Yeah, know his Mets won a pennant in 2000 - and then promptly lost the Series to the Yankees.  Just what the Sox need.

11/30/11 1715: Here's MLB.com's Hot Stove gang talking about Valentine.  They seem more impressed with his accomplishments than I am, but also note that as manager "he is the show."  Self-promoting gadfly seems an apt descriptor.

As Fenway Turns ...

By now everyone knows about the fried chicken and beer allegations, among other clubhouse issues.  In fact, the Boston Globe published "before and after" pictures asking readers their opinion of which players weren't exactly taking their committment to game-readiness seriously enough.  Now Manager Tito Francona is gone, followed by several kick-him-on-the-way-out the door leaks and comments, and GM Theo Epstein likely isn't far behind.  Epstein, in particular, has been lousy at putting the pieces in place recently, as the acquisitions - for really big money - of John Lackey, Carl Crawford and Bobby Jenks have demonstrated.  So the Cubs want Theo?  Great.  Grab a couple of good prospects and send him on his way.

The Red Sox seem to want Assistant GM Ben Cherington to take over for Epstein.  The only way that works for me is if there is a "director of baseball operations" installed above him.  Cherington has been with the team since 1999, and the minor league system is virtually barren of high-level talent.  How'd it get that way, Ben?  The players that come up from the minors don't seem to be "big league ready" when they arrive, often making several trips between Pawtucket and Boston before sticking.  Why is that, Ben?  If he can answer those questions, and then answer how he plans to turn those problems around, then maybe you promote him.  But I'd rather tap into an organization who successfully comes up with big league levels of talent who arrive ready to contribute.  Like Tampa, St. Louis, Minnesota for example.  You cannot simply follow a "plug in high-priced free agent A" mentality unless you want your disappointments to also bankrupt you.

As for player movement, I stand by most of my assessments, but I think there will be value in breaking up the Lackey-Beckett influence in the clubhouse.  Beckett will be the easiest to trade; Lackey will make you eat millions if you want to move him.  But one of them has to go, and you'll want at least two, preferably three, good young arms in return for a Beckett if that happens.  I'd like to move Kevin Youkilis, who likely could bring more good young talent.  I would bring back Ortiz - YMMV.  The core - Pedroia, Ellsbury, Gonzalez, Crawford, Ortiz, Lester, Bucholz  - are keepers (in Crawford's case you're forced to make it work).  You'll need Bard and Papelbon, and you need a manager who can use them right.  Give Reddick or Kalish a shot in right field; fill the hole at third if Youkilis is traded, and at catcher if you don't think Saltalamacchia and Lavarnway are enough, and rework the bench with solid pros with character.  If you can't find those guys then your major league scouting isn't doing its job either.

I would be surprised if next year's team threatens championship.   They'll be above .500, and that won't be great, but erasing and building will not be simple.  The sensible time frame should be 2013 and 2014 - the core players will still be young and productive, and the bad taste from this years calamity will have been diluted by time.

Francona's Gone, Now What?

I liked Tito Francona as a person, and I think he did a fairly good job during his eight seasons of presiding over a happy clubhouse.  He made only a few questionable decisions in terms of offensive game strategy.  But, as I stated in my earlier post, I repeatedly had to scratch my head over his management of pitchers.  His best he overworked, and his lesser pitchers he too often gave up on.  And, from what I'm hearing, the team had conditioning issues.  Hey, you're a professional athlete, this shouldn't happen.  But, as it turns out, if it does it's something that Francona has to correct.  And he didn't.

Ah, water under the bridge.  He's out, so now the team is shopping for a manager.  And they've got a boatload of decisions to make in player personnel  Hopefully the problems don't stem from some of the high priced talent to whom they have committed millions.

Here's one man's take on what the Sox need to do in the off-season, and what they need to do going forward.

Manager:  Ryne Sandberg, a Hall of Famer, managed the Phillies AAA team this past season.  He'd walk into the clubhouse with the immediate respect of the players, and the ability to look them in the eye and get them to listen.  He'd likely be able to handle the Boston Fishbowl as well as Francona did.  Is he the best guy for the job?  I think a bench coach or pitching coach from a team with strong pitching and fundamentals could be a very good choice, possibly Dave Martinez from Tampa, and there are others.  But Sandberg's resume might just get to some of the individuals that Francona couldn't reach.  I don't see DeMarlo Hale being the guy as he was in the management this year.

Outfield:  You won't have JD Drew to kick around anymore - his $14M contract expires this year.  He's 35, and no one in their right mind will offer him another big deal.  Jacoby Ellsbury is in his arbitration years, and obviously you keep him.  And you are stuck with Carl Crawford, who you can only hope will be much more comfortable, and much better, next year.  There's no downside to giving Josh Reddick first shot at right field.  He's a good fielder who had stretches where he was very dangerous at the plate.  Like a lot of young players he was inconsistent, but experience often fixes that problem.  Another young guy, Ryan Kalish, showed a lot in 2010 then spent the year disabled after injuring a shoulder.  He might be a contributor, but you can't count on him as a pencil-him-in starter.  You need one or two more solid outfielders.

Infield:  With Dustin Pedroia and Adrian Gonzalez the right side is set.  Kevin Youkilis was supposed to be your third baseman, but played injured much of the year before he couldn't even play injured anymore.  He should be back healthy, but he's 32 and does have an injury tendency, particularly since he gets hit by so many pitches.  Marco Scutaro played very well the last 2 months, one of the few who did, but is 35.  Jose Iglesias in the minors might make the jump up.  But if you're going to make something big happen, third and short are the probable locations.  Youkilis in particular might bring you some frontline pitching.

DH:  Re-sign David Ortiz, two or three years.  Yes, he's 35 and fell off in September.  So did a lot of Sox.

Catcher:  Not sure what to make of Ryan Lavarnway and Jarrod Saltalamacchia.  On the one hand, both have pop, and seemed to be able to handle pitching fairly well.  On the other hand, this staff struggled, and some of the guys who struggled this year didn't when Jason Varitek was the everyday catcher.  And neither hits consistently, particularly Saltalamacchia, who was awful at the plate in the last month.  Of the two I like Lavarnway just a hair better.  This is another place to look for help, like the Yankees did last year with Russell Martin.

Starting Pitching:  You've got Josh Beckett signed at $17M per through 2014.  You've got Jon Lester signed for two more years at $7.6M/$11.6M.  Clay Bucholz should be very healthy next year and is signed through 2015 fairly cheap.  You've got John Lackey, unfortunately, signed through 2014 at just under $16M per.  You have the option on Andrew Miller - pick it up.  Tim Wakefield will be 46 next year, but he's Phil Niekro and comes cheap.  Go ahead and keep him, he's a character guy in the clubhouse.  Daisuke Matsuzaka is coming off elbow reconstruction, and was struggling even before getting hurt.  Doubtful he can help.  If you can get another starter who can help you for reasonable money, pick one up.  If you're looking to trade other clubs will start by asking for Bucholz and Lester.  Don't do it.  Exit question: do you try to re-sign Erik Bedard?  He's been pretty good in the past, hasn't he?  Not recently, though.

Bullpen:  This one is tough.  Given how solid Jonathan Papelbon was this year you really have to try to re-sign him.  Daniel Bard ranged from shaky to horrid the last month, but I blame that on overuse.  However, both of these gentlemen need to learn how to get opposing players out with another pitch in addition to their fastball.  They both throw relatively flat fastballs at 96 (JP) and 98(DB).  One of the reasons Mariano Rivera, like Bruce Sutter before him, is so successful is because his primary pitch, the cutter, moves and is often not in the strike zone by the time the batter swings.  If these two fireballers are going to go with the heat they'd better get command of it.  Alfredo Aceves proved he belongs and his enormous flexibility makes the entire bullpen better.  He's in arbitration.   Franklin Morales has got a pretty good arm, and showed flashes.  Felix Doubront could be another lefty starter, but he's also shown he can help in the pen.  Scott Atchison is useful and cheap.  He takes the ball when you give it to him.  And you'll need to make decisions on Dan Wheeler and Matt Albers.  Albers is five years younger.  I think both were hurt by Francona's use, and might be better with more direction and purpose.  On the other hand, maybe not.  The whole group, however, could benefit from Ray Miller's advice: Work Fast, Change Speeds, Throw Strikes.

Bench:  I liked what I saw from Mike Aviles, who plays with attitude and intensity.  Jed Lowrie is a switch hitter who can play third, short and second.  That helps, but stop flirting with him as a starter.  Conor Jackson can play first or the outfield and is a right handed bat.  But you might be able to upgrade on several fronts here.  This group could use some veteran help.

Trade Bait:  Gosh I wish Lars Anderson had just torn it up at every level - you could have saved the money on Adrian Gonzalez.  But he didn't, and there's no room for him at the inn.  Michael Bowden hasn't shown much more than a good arm.  Too many of his pitches are in the middle of the plate.  He needs to learn command of the strike zone.  Perhaps somewhere else.  And there isn't much else at the major league level.

Drafting & Minors:  There's something rotten in Denmark, or rather in Pawtucket, Portland, Salem, Greenville and Lowell.  For all of the "great" drafts that Peter Gammons think the Red Sox have, they have managed to come up nearly empty with what's left of them in the minors.  Jose Iglesias, with his three tools.  Possibly Will Middlebrooks, a third baseman in AA Portland last year (.302, 18 HR).  Bryce Brentz is probably a little further away.  The first pick this year was a very good college pitcher, Matt Barnes.  And why do the pitchers seem to come up unprepared for the majors, and repeatedly have to be sent back down?  Tampa keeps running out pitchers they developed, and they show up ready to throw aspirin tablets and "ungodly breaking stuff."  Does the pitcher development need an overhaul?  How about scouting?

Well, that's about it.  Hope I haven't forgotten anyone.  I might have one more of these posts looking at the free-agent pool when it's a bit more certain.  There's plenty above to like, if you're the incoming manager.  Fitness and attitude need some work, and the pitching deck needs to be re-ordered.

Sources: Salaries Roster

There's Plenty Of Blame To Go Around, Red Sox

But I'm going to start with the one guy who hasn't gotten as much of it as he should, at least not for what I blame him.

I blame Terry Francona.  No, not exclusively.  There are others who will need to look in the mirror.

You definitely have to give GM Theo Epstein a healthy portion, particularly for the woefully inexplicable signing for way-too-much-money of John Lackey.  You could add Carl Crawford to that, but in looking at his detailed stats, there is reason to believe he'll be better in at least a few of his years to come.  Not $20 million worth better, but better.

And Theo Epstein gets the blame for a minor league system which, right now, has one and only one player who may make an impact at the major league level next year, shortstop Jose Iglesias.  He's not much of a hitter, but has speed and great defensive skills. Three out of five tools.  Lefty hurler Felix Doubront will likely be a contributor, but he's spent as much time at the major league level in the last two years as he has in the minors so I'm not counting him.  Other than that, the cupboard is full of Single A potential and AA and AAA struggles.

The players didn't perform, so the easy thing to do is to speculate on the mental makeup of the individuals who failed.  Was the tailoff in Adrian Gonzalez production due to fatigue, stress of the race or injury?  Was Jarrod Saltalamacchia, he of the lengthy last name, a fair hitting catcher with occasional power, or did pressure and focused pitching turn him into a non-hitting catcher?  Sure they lost Kevin Youkilis to injury, and that sucked a 5 hole hitter from the lineup, one who could protect David Ortiz, but Youkilis wasn't tearing it up even before his season ended.  Neither Josh Beckett nor Jon Lester, purported to be TweedleDum and TweedleDee as staff aces, performed like aces in the last month of the season.  The Sox needed those aces to be solid every start.  They weren't.

But I blame Francona.  I watched him mismanage his pitching staff all year, and I grumbled about it repeatedly to those willing to listen.  Remember, he managed a team with a relatively set lineup and an everyday DH.  There were very few interleague games requiring double switches and hitting for the pitcher.  No, his job was to manage the pitching staff.  And he did a lousy job.

He pulled pitchers who were pitching well too early; he allowed others to struggle when they weren't.  He had no faith in anyone in the bullpen not named Aceves, Bard or Papelbon, largely because he didn't allow anyone else to build confidence during the successful summer months so they'd be ready when the September crunch came.  The two or three members of the bullpen who had been reasonably successful elsewhere weren't allowed to be successful here.

Dan Wheeler.  He spent the previous three years in Tampa succeeding in the bullpen.  About 67 appearances each year, ERA around 3.20, and far fewer hits than innings pitched.  Not great, but solid, dependable.  This year he was used only when the Sox were either far ahead or far behind, and only 47 times overall.  And he wasn't reliable when Francona needed him to be reliable.

Matt Albers.  He actually did pitch pretty darn well most of the year.  But Francona didn't use him in a way that could make him most successful, and most helpful to the team.  Francona wanted a formula - "Bard in the 8th, Papelbon in the 9th".  But he didn't set up anyone else to be Bard and Papelbon when Bard and Papelbon couldn't be Bard and Papelbon.  You have to have an alternate plan when either of those two is too tired to go, or is on one or another rare occasion, struggling.  He didn't.  Matt Albers could have been an alternate.

And let's not talk about Kyle Weiland and Andrew Miller.  For some reason other teams seem to bring up during the season relatively successful AAA pitchers who are then relatively successful in the bigs.  Boston doesn't.  Both of these pitchers have good stuff, and fairly good command.  Clay Bucholz and Daisuke Matsuzaka go down, and you need one of these guys - just one - to get you five or six innings relatively regularly.  You have to wonder how well the manager helped them prepare for their outings.

Miller had two reasonably good starts - wins - near the end of August, then one terrible start and one meh start at the beginning of September.  He never got the ball again as a starter, or even as a reliever in a close game.  Given how the rest of the Sox starters performed in September, particularly the aforementioned Lackey, he should have gotten the ball again.

Successful managers may start with pitchers who are less than dominating, but if the team is going to succeed then the manager has to take those pitchers and mold them into a staff.  Each pitcher may have a role, but each needs to be helped to be successful, and they each also have to at times step in and do the job if another falters.  Francona didn't get the most out of this staff, he got the least.

They could have used more hitting in September; they could have used more pitching; they could have used a better rested Bard and Papelbon; they could have used a couple of more reliable relievers; they could have hoped for better from their "aces".  They could have used a manager who developed pitching rather than burning it out.  They got none of the above.  Congratulations, Sox, and good luck with the rebuilding.

9/29/11 2024: Here's a painful assessment from the Boston Globe's Chad Finn.  "Coco Crisp with a lousy glove" indeed.  And this, on Lackey: "Not only is he coming off the worst season a Red Sox starting pitcher has ever submitted, but he's a miserable, dim, finger-pointing, unaccountable wretch of a teammate, and those may be his good qualities."  Finn defends Francona, but I wish he'd have a look at how Francona manages pitching.  He might change his mind.

The Herald's John Tomase points out that the 69-93 Baltimore Orioles, one of the worst teams in baseball, beat Boston in five of seven games at the end of the season.  Ugh.

9/29/11 2040: Video of the demise at HotAir from Allahpundit.  Double ugh.

Bravo, Theo

The Boston Red Sox were troubled last year by an iffy offense, one which faltered even more with the season-ending injuries to Dustin Pedroia and Kevin Youkilis, both All-Stars.  Mike Lowell retired.  Adrian Beltre is a free agent, who rumor has it could resign with Boston, but may not.  Pitching was fine, particularly the starters, what with Clay Bucholz' breakout season, Jon Lester, Josh Beckett and John Lackey fronting the rotation.  In the bullpen wait flamethrower Daniel Bard and closer Jonathan Papelbon (more on him later).  But the offense!  Well, what do you do to correct the imbalance?

First you bring in slugging first baseman Adrian Gonzalez for three (really promising) minor leaguers and $160 million.

"We're thrilled to be able to make this trade," Red Sox general manager Theo Epstein said Monday at a news conference introducing the slugger, adding that the team has admired the power-hitting Gonzalez since his days playing for the Texas Rangers...

Gonzalez, donning a Boston jersey without a number, said the Red Sox have always been his favorite American League team in part because of Boston icon and Hall of Famer Ted Williams, who like Gonzalez, was a left-hander and San Diego native.

"I'm very excited to be in Boston and ready to beat the Yanks," he said.

The Red Sox sent minor league right-hander Casey Kelly, first baseman Anthony Rizzo, outfielder Reymond Fuentes and a player to be named later to San Diego....

In five seasons with San Diego, Gonzalez has 161 homers and 501 RBIs. Including parts of two seasons with Texas, he has 168 homers and 525 RBIs. He hit .298 with 31 homers and 101 RBIs last season.

Epstein expects better numbers in Fenway Park with the Green Monster in left field. "We think he is going to wear the wall out," Epstein said.

Then, you bring in the top free agent outfielder, Carl Crawford, to beef up the outfield production and add speed to the lineup.

The Angels had been in pursuit of Crawford, the top position player on the free agent market, and offered him a seven-year, $108 million deal. Yankees general manager Brian Cashman had dinner with Crawford and agent Brian Peters Tuesday night. The Rangers also were involved.

But the Red Sox acted quickly and decisively and just days after trading for Adrian Gonzalez, have added a second premier player. Crawford hit .307 with 19 home runs, 90 RBIs, and 47 stolen bases last season for the Tampa Bay Rays. The 29-year-old is a four-time All-Star and this year won his first Gold Glove.

Crawford’s market was set Sunday when right fielder Jayson Werth agreed to a seven-year, $126 million deal with the Washington Nationals. The Red Sox topped that contract by an average of $2.3 million a year.

With Gonzalez reportedly having agreed to a seven-year, $154 million extension to his contract, the Red Sox have invested $296 million in a span of four days. The additions of Gonzalez and Crawford, two stars in their prime, should set the team up as contenders for years to come.

The lineup now has Crawford and Gonzalez, Youkilis and Pedroia, David Ortiz, JD Drew (though I prefer youngster Ryan Kalish) and Jacoby Ellsbury.  At shortstop currently are Marco Scutaro and Jed Lowrie, both of whom have solid bats.  Catcher is manned by Jason Varitek, on the downside of his career but helps run differential on the other end by managing the game exquisitely, and Jerrod Saltalamacchia, whose name simply drips off his shirt.

Crawford plays great defense, and can be expected to score over 100 runs in that lineup, with 20 HR and 50 SB while hitting around .300.  Best of all, though, may be what it does to the Sox traditional rival.  It makes 'em crazy.  If the Yankees don't come up with Cliff Lee, and they are pulling out all the stops to do that, they may find themselves looking up at the end of next season.

Not So Fast, Patriots

Apparently the New England Patriots spent their time on the flight to Cleveland reading their press clippings.  (Which was, of course, something that has plagued Barack Obama for the last 4 years, but let's leave recent electoral politics out of it.)

...it is midway through the 2010 season and the Patriots stand alone with the league's best record at 6-1, and they've managed to reach that perch with comparatively little fanfare.

The Patriots, except for one flurry of attention when they traded wide receiver Randy Moss, have remained mostly under the radar, piling up victories with a revamped supporting cast assembled to complement their championship-winning mainstays, Coach Bill Belichick and quarterback Tom Brady. The manner in which these Patriots are winning games is beginning to draw comparisons not to the exploits of the 2007 team that went 18-0 before being upset by the New York Giants in the Super Bowl, but to the workmanlike clubs that captured three Super Bowls between the 2001 and 2004 seasons.

"I think the way they're winning games is similar," former Patriots linebacker Tedy Bruschi said. "I can make the connection on those terms. It's not just one unit of the team that's dominating. In '07, it was the offense that got all the attention. Now it's each phase. . . . It's been contributions from all over the place."

Maybe those convinced of the strength of the Pats didn't realize that they're 25th in total defense, and last at 47% in third down percentage defense.  Oof!! They stubbed their toes bigtime in Cleveland this afternoon, now on the short end of a 34-14 score.  The Pats defense has given up long scoring marches, unable to stop bruising back Peyton Hillis (6-1, 240), who has now run for 184 of the Browns' 230 yards.  Yeccch.

The Patriots have Tom Brady, which always makes them dangerous.  And they had won five in a row.  But they awere going on the road in the NFL which is always tough.  One of my concerns has been that they don't do the two things on defense that you seem to need to do in the NFL, and that's a) pressure the quarterback and b) stuff the run.  The Browns showed today that a power running game works against New England, and it opens up the secondary as the linebackers and safeties cheat up to help.  And offensively the Patriots don't run the ball consistently (68 yards today, total), and their receivers struggle to get separation and to stretch the field (7 catches by the wideouts today).  Browns corners played mostly man to man, quite successfully.

Next week isn't any easier, as they go on the road again to Pittsburgh.  You'd think Mike Tomlin will have taken some notes, and I suspect Bill Belichick will have done so too.  Belichick needs to find a way to get his defense off the field before 12 plays and three or four first downs.  Sacks help, and staying out of third and short would also help.

2010: The Year They Don't Go Shopping

Four years ago in the Republican purge of November 2006, when Democrats took control of the House of Representatives, Republican Charlie Bass (NH-2) was ousted from his seat by Democrat Paul Hodes, who is now running what is very likely a losing battle for the Senate against Kelly Ayotte.  Back then I wrote this about the loss by Mr. Bass:

I kept hearing about the vaunted Republican turnout machine in the run-up to the election.  And yet, those voters simple evaporated, never showed up.  How can we tell?  Let's look at the loss of Congressman Charlie Bass to Paul Hodes in NH-2, which happens to be my district.  Using rough numbers, in 2004, (admittedly a high profile Presidential year) Mr. Bass received 193,000 votes to Mr. Hodes 125,000, in a state that John Kerry won (barely).  In the last midterm year, 2002, Bass received 125,000 votes out of 220,000 votes total.  This year there were roughly 205,000 votes, or despite the intensity of the runup to this election, a 7% drop in total votes.  Bass received only 93,000, 100,000 fewer than he got in 2004.  Where did all these voters go?  They didn't go to Hodes, who received 108,000 votes, less than he got in 2004, and only 13,000 more than the Democrat got in 2002.

So where did they go?  They went shopping.

The problem for Mr. Bass in 2006 wasn't the tidal wave of votes in favor of Paul Hodes.  It was the ebb of votes that he received.  Voters, after much Democratic demagoguery ably assisted by a complicit media, became disenchanted with the Bush Administration and the war in Iraq and punished those associated with it by going shopping.  Mr. Bass was a casualty.

Now, I'm not an avid Charlie Bass backer.  I supported Jennifer Horn in the primary.  But I like him, his ideas, and the 'R' next to his name much more than his the comparable characteristics of his opponent in this year's attempt to return to the House.  Ann Kuster is an unreconstructed leftist.  Not only does she favor ObamaCare, she wants the 'public option', i.e., single payer.  She's in favor of raising taxes on the job creators in a recession.  And she's proudly a "community activist," and certainly a Democratic activist.  As the NH Union-Leader said in their endorsement of Mr. Bass,

Hodes' liberalism was too much for the voters of the 2nd District, which is more moderate than the 1st District, but not as liberal as Vermont. But New Hampshire Democrats have not been able to maintain the facade they erected in 2004, with which they present themselves as traditional New Hampshire moderates, not the Vermont-style liberals they really are. Last month, they nominated someone even more liberal than Paul Hodes to run for the 2nd District seat: Concord lobbyist Ann McLane Kuster.

Kuster is so liberal she thinks Obamacare didn't go far enough in taking over the health care and health insurance industries. She actually thinks the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 caused the recession. She supports the stimulus and thinks Washington should pass another one.

The people of New Hampshire want representatives in Washington who will put the brakes on the Obama agenda, not accelerate it. In the 2nd District, that means electing an actual moderate, not a liberal who pretends to be one. It means electing Charlie Bass.

This is probably not the year to be either type of activist.  This year, with the Obama Administration's policy overreach, which I plan to discuss in a subsequent post and which is comparable as a motivating factor to the Iraq war in 2006, Charlie Bass will win.  The Boston Globe reported recently a UNH poll and found that in NH-2 it was Kuster 43% - Bass 40%.  I don't generally do predictions, but today it will be Bass 53% - Kuster 46%.   It's going to be hard for Ms. Kuster to find voters motivated for more of what the Democrats in Washington are peddling.  Today those voters decide not to go shopping ... or perhaps because of the economy they can't.  This one will flip to the Republicans, and it won't be that close.

11/2/10 1100: The Cook Political Report has a neat little dashboard gadget.  Just slide along the second bar graph and find the race you want.  Bass-Kuster is in the "toss-up" category in the toward the left end of the green bar.  Check whatever race interests you.

11/3/10 1730: Looks like my political predicting days have not yet arrived.  I thought there'd be more conservative voters showing up at the polls, but although Bass won he underperformed, at 48 to 47% for Kuster, a 4000 vote margin.  And total votes were only about 213,000, fairly typical for a midterm in NH 2nd district despite having Kelly Ayotte highlighting the Senate race and a close gubernatorial contest along with policy issues.  Well, New Hampshire, with no sales tax and no income tax, has weathered the economic seas better than most.  Unemployment is still roughly 5.5% here.

Hmmm.  I guess they actually could go shopping.

Big 3 vs. Big 3

Where I'll be tonight ...

vs.

(AP Photo/Orlando Sentinel)

Well, the Green do also have this guy.  And, hey, look, a 7 foot Turkish center!!

This should be fun!!!

And The Congressman Knew Nothing About It?

The Boston Globe Metro Desk reports that Massachusetts Representative John Tierney's wife will be pleading guilty tomorrow to tax charges related to managing the illegal offshore gambling earnings of her brother.

Federal prosecutors filed documents that were unsealed today in US District Court in Boston charging Patrice Tierney, 59, who is married to the Salem Democrat, with four counts of aiding and abetting the filing of false tax returns by her brother, Robert Eremian, of St. John's Antigua.

The US Attorney's office announced that Tierney is scheduled to plead guilty tomorrow afternoon.

Boston attorney Donald K. Stern, who represents Patrice Tierney, said that under a plea agreement, prosecutors will recommend that Tierney receive probation, with several months of home confinement. But, Stern said, "I intend to urge the court to impose a sentence of straight probation.''

Sixth district Congressman Tierney, whom one only can infer is a Democrat in this story as his opponent is identified as Republican Bill Hudak, issued a statement that reads, in part:

"While devastated to learn that her brother might have deceived her and so many others, Patrice has acknowledged and agreed that she should have done more to personally investigate the true nature of Mr. Eremian’s business activities in the course of carrying out his requests in paying his children’s household expenses, family medical bills, and his personal bills and taxes from a checking account in which he deposited funds."

I think it highly unlikely that Mr. Tierney knew nothing about her overseas brother and the large account with which Mrs. Tierney was supporting her brother's family.  For eight years.  I would think he should similarly "have done more to personally investigate the true nature of Mr. Eremian's business activities."  Call it "implausible deniability."  Maybe he should talk to Michigan's John Conyers, whose wife had her own problems.

*my mistake.  It does identify him as a "Salem Democrat" in the second paragraph.

On Taxes And Spending, And Death By Taxes And Spending

Former Senator Phil Gramm has in today's Wall Street Journal an interesting look at the Great Depression, and the echoes of FDR's policy choices that he sees in President Obama's policies.  He notes that if employment is the measure, the U.S. has done worse with the 'stimulus' than most other countries affected by the financial crisis and recession.

Obama administration officials such as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner have argued that without their policies the economy would be worse, and we might have fallen "off a cliff." While this assertion cannot be tested, we can compare the recent experience of other countries to our own.

The chart nearby compares total 2007 employment levels in the United States, the United Kingdom, the 16 euro zone countries, the G-7 countries and all OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries with those of the second quarter of 2010. There are 4.6% fewer people employed in the U.S. today than at the start of the recession. Euro zone countries have lost 1.7% of their jobs. Total employment in the U.K. is down 0.6%, G-7 average employment is down 2.4%, and OECD employment has fallen 1.9%.

This simple comparison suggests two things. First, that American economic policy has been less effective in increasing employment than the policies of other developed nations. Second, that if there was a cliff out there, no country fell off. Those that suffered the most were the most profligate...

Indeed.  But Mr. Gramm's look back at the depression-era policies of Mr. Roosevelt finds dramatic increases in spending - which started under Pres. Hoover - and in taxes, that did little to stem the depression, but rather prolonged it.  He also finds much of the same tax-the-rich class warfare that we hear from Mr. Obama.  This quote from Winston Churchill is instructive.

The Roosevelt administration also conducted a seven-year populist tirade against private business, which FDR denounced as the province of "economic royalists" and "malefactors of great wealth." The war on business and wealth was so traumatic that the League of Nations' 1939 World Economic Survey attributed part of the poor U.S. economic performance to it: "The relations between the leaders of business and the Administration were uneasy, and this uneasiness accentuated the unwillingness of private enterprise to embark on further projects of capital expenditure which might have helped to sustain the economy."

Churchill, who was generally guarded when criticizing New Deal policies, could not hold back. "The disposition to hunt down rich men as if they were noxious beasts," he noted in "Great Contemporaries" (1939), is "a very attractive sport." But "confidence is shaken and enterprise chilled, and the unemployed queue up at the soup kitchens or march out to the public works with ever growing expense to the taxpayer and nothing more appetizing to take home to their families than the leg or wing of what was once a millionaire. . . It is indispensable to the wealth of nations and to the wage and life standards of labour, that capital and credit should be honoured and cherished partners in the economic system. . . ."

Sharp guy, that Churchill.  It's too bad his bust is no longer in the White House.  Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats would rather tilt at the windmill of "the wealthy" (otherwise known as "those who employ") for what they perceive as their traditional political gain than pursue policy that would grow the economy.  Most economists, and most politicians, in fact, will tell you that it's a bad idea to raise taxes in a struggling economy.  Last quarter growth was 1.7%.  Positive, but barely so, and in no way indicative of a "robust recovery."

The Boston Globe, no friend of Republicans, finds fault with Obama's Democrats for failing to address the pending tax increase issue before adjourning for midterm campaigning.  Predictably, it wanted the tax increase to be blocked for middle class taxpayers but still to take place for the job creators.  But nothing was done, and that in itself is a problem.

Democrats worry that they have been robbed of their most valuable populist talking point: that cuts on income taxes should be extended for the middle class, but not for the wealthy.

“It is both a political and a governmental mistake,’’ said Representative Michael Capuano, a Somerville Democrat, of the delayed vote. He pushed for a vote this week and tried floating an alternate proposal — to no avail. “To me, it is a classic example of what’s wrong with Washington.’’

The tax cut extension is expected to remain a political issue over the next few weeks, but not in the way Democrats had initially intended. Rather than using it on the campaign trail against Republicans, Democrats could find themselves on the defensive as the GOP yesterday began framing the vote delay as an example of government ineptitude and cowardice.

Democrats have only themselves to blame for the mess they will see one month from tomorrow.  They could have pursued policies that would allow recovery to take place.  (Note: government does not create recovery, but it can create the environment for it.)  Then, able to point to that accomplishment with pride, with employment once more growing, Mr. Obama and his hyper-partisan, hyper-liberal congressional leadership would have had the political capital necessary to try to pass their agenda with support not just from newspaper editors and CNN/MSNBC talking heads but with some of the 53% that voted for him.  Now, however, they chose in their policies the triple binds of hamstringing recovery, robbing Americans of freedom in the healthcare bill, and creating unsustainable debt while threatening tax increases.

And Americans are angry.  Rightly.

It's Good To Be A Red Sox Fan

Very good, win or lose.  None of my Sox caps have ever been worn during criminal activity.

Will The Guy From Harvard Listen To The Guys From Harvard?

Today's Wall Street Journal carries an op-ed by a Harvard political economist, Alberto Alesina, who looked at the relative worth of tax cuts and spending cuts vs. "stimulus" spending and tax increases in dealing with both economic recovery and deficits.  If you're an Obama economic model believer, a liberal who trusts that the government can generate economic growth through extraction of cash from the economy redistributing it to favored projects and constituencies the results are not pretty.

In the U.S., meanwhile, recent stimulus packages have proven that the "multiplier"—the effect on GDP per one dollar of increased government spending—is small. Stimulus spending also means that tax increases are coming in the future; such increases will further threaten economic growth.

Economic history shows that even large adjustments in fiscal policy, if based on well-targeted spending cuts, have often led to expansions, not recessions. Fiscal adjustments based on higher taxes, on the other hand, have generally been recessionary...

The composition of fiscal adjustments is therefore critical. Based on what we know, the U.S. and Europe are currently at greater risk from increased stimulus spending than from gradual but credible spending cuts.

Europe seems to have learned the lessons of the past decades: In fact, all the countries currently adjusting their fiscal policy are focusing on spending cuts, not tax hikes. Yet fiscal policy in the U.S. will sooner or later imply higher taxes if spending is not soon reduced.

The evidence from the last 40 years suggests that spending increases meant to stimulate the economy and tax increases meant to reduce deficits are unlikely to achieve their goals. The opposite combination might.

Yesterday another Harvard economist, Robert Barro, hit concordant notes in another Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Now the Obama administration is considering whether to maintain the Bush tax cuts or let them expire. Unfortunately, little of the administration's analysis refers to incentives. Rather the discussion is mainly about whether the poor or the rich spend a greater fraction of added disposable income, whether the rich can afford to pay more taxes, and so on.

From the standpoint of incentives, the important point is that higher marginal tax rates harm the economy. For example, if all of the 2003 Bush tax cuts (which alone reduced the average marginal rate by two percentage points) were undone for 2011, I estimate that GDP growth for 2011-12 would be reduced by 1.1 percentage points...

My hope is that the administration will shift away from programs based on Keynesian reasoning and toward policies that emphasize favorable economic incentives.  Extension of the full tax cuts of 2001-03 and a reduction in the period of eligibility for unemployment insurance would be good starts.

You know, some of those guys from Harvard are pretty smart.  You'd think a guy from Harvard would know that, but unfortunately Mr. Obama's experience at America's oldest university was limited to its Law School.

A Vote Negated

As we approach the November mid-term elections, with Republicans itching to strike while the iron is hot, it's worth remembering that there will most likely be some close elections.  And with close elections comes the potential for vote shenanigans to swing the result.  Here are a few links to keep in mind as we drop under 2 months to go.

First, former FEC nominee Hans von Spakovsky, now a senior legal fellow at the Heritage foundation, writes at National Review's The Corner about the aroma wafting from the Justice Department as regards the maintaining of proper voter rolls by the states.  It seems a number of states have had no one removed from their voter rolls due to death, which should certainly make one ineligible.  Several states have more registered voters than people of voting age, a situation that also exists in Philadelphia.

In the spring of 2006, I reviewed portions of the city of Philadelphia’s 2005 voting list. I found that underaged voters, deceased voters, and incarcerated felons were registered to vote and had remained on the voting list, despite the fact that none of them were eligible to vote in Pennsylvania (or, in most cases, anywhere else).

In Pennsylvania, a voter must be 18 or older as of the date of the election to be eligible to vote. Yet at least 130 voters on the list were under the age of 18. Thirty-four of whom had a birth year of 2004 — the year of the election. And 215 voters on the list had a birthdate of: “00-00-00.”

Just looking at the years of birth for the registered voters, I found 54 voters listed with years of birth ranging from 1825 – 1899. While it is possible that a voter born in 1899 could still be alive in 2004 (he or she would be 105), it is clearly impossible that someone born in 1825 would.

Digging a little bit deeper, I was able to find confirmed deceased voters still on the list. I took a sample of 385 registrants born between the years 1900 and 1905, and found that 51 (thirteen percent!) were in fact dead, according to the Social Security Death Index.

J. Christian Adams, a former voting rights attorney in the DOJ, is now a private citizen and is bringing lawsuits against his old bosses for their failure to enforce the portion of the law directing states to expunge ineligible voters from the rolls.  He notes that most often voter fraud is insufficient to swing an election; sometimes, though, it may be, or we would still have Senator Norm Coleman in Minnesota, and would have most likely had Governor Dino Rossi in Washington.  The potential problems are enormous with the smorgasbord of absentee ballots, hundreds of thousands in many cases, as well as provisional ballots and same-day registrations.

Every illegitimate vote for one candidate negates a legitimate one for the opposing candidate.  While voter suppression (and particularly intimidation) are more noteworthy due to direct negation of legitimate votes, opening the door to voting improprieties indirectly negates other legitimate votes.  The law gives the Justice Department under AG Eric Holder the responsibility for enforcing these provisions, and the DOJ is at this time sadly derelict in its duties with an election only two months away.  Mr. von Spakovsky writes

It’s too bad that a private citizen has to carry out the responsibility of the Justice Department because it has failed to do so and, in fact, refuses to do so for ideological and political reasons that have nothing to do with the impartial administration of justice.

Yes, it is too bad.  Maybe we should go to the purple finger?

Francona Blew The Game

It seems like armchair, Monday morning quarterbacking to look with 20-20 hindsight at last nights Sox-Rays tilt and point the finger of blame at one Terry Francona.  Well, it is.  But last night, in the bottom of the eighth inning when Francona sent Clay Buchholz out to throw his 107th pitch to start the inning I thought "Oh, this is a mistake."

You see,the Sox had just taken the lead on Tampa Bay 2-1 on a Victor Martinez home run (third in two nights), giving Buchholz a chance for his 16th win.  The Red Sox needed six more outs.  True, the usual setup  guy Daniel Bard had pitched last night.   Also true, closer Jonathan Papelbon had pitched the ninth inning last night as well.  But the team had Thursday off, so this would have required an inning from each for only the second night in a row.  Or he could  go to lefty rookie Felix Doubront, who has been remarkably reliable in a setup-for-the-setup role.

But no. After Buchholz had given seven outstanding innings Francona left him in for two more hitters.  The first, Rays' centerfielder B.J. Upton,took the second pitch, a belt-high inside curve, deep to left to tie the game.  Doubront and Bard did eventually pitch, and gave the Sox scoreless appearances. But rather than bring in Papelbon in a tie game, understandably, Francona went with Scott Atchison in the 10th, and  Rays' DH Dan Johnson, who's hitting .149 now, took Atchison deep to win the game.

This one's on you Terry.  You talk a good game about everyone on the 25 man roster doing their job when the time comes to produce wins.  But when it came time to put those expressions of faith in your players into action, you failed.  You needed six more outs.  Bard for three or even four, and Papelbon for two or three.  Worry about  tomorrow's game tomorrow.

Yes, also, in the seventh J.D. Drew should have dropped the foul fly  to right, rather than letting Carlos Pena tag and score that first Tampa Bay run.  But you  had a chance to help out your pitcher and get him a win by doing the right thing in the eighth, and you didn't. This  one's on you, Terry.

Throwing It All Away

Of all of the frustrating losses this year by the Boston Red Sox, they have in the last two evenings, Thursday in Toronto and last night in Arlington, TX, perhaps reached the zenith (or is it nadir?) of frustration for themselves and their fans.  Ugly is a word that does not do justice.  First, a look at Thursday night's meltdown:

Just when the Red Sox were building the momentum needed to turn their fractured season into something hopeful, Papelbon cast it away. Handed a two-run lead to protect in the ninth inning against the Toronto Blue Jays, the closer allowed three runs, and the resulting 6-5 loss left the Red Sox stunned.

“These days happen,’’ Ortiz said. “It never gets easier.’’

The Sox took a 5-2 lead into the ninth, seemingly poised to win their fourth straight game and draw closer to a playoff berth. With John Lackey having thrown only 91 pitches, manager Terry Francona let him stay in the game.

Lackey threw a gopher ball to Jose Bautista leading off the ninth inning.  Bautista has done that to a lot of pitchers this year, and Lackey had thrown less than 100 pitches.  The manager, Terry Francona, played it "safe" and brought in the closer.  This did not work out as planned.  Two pitches later the lead was one run, and one out later it was tied.  The winning run would score on a medium depth sacrifice fly to a weak-armed Jacoby Ellsbury.

Last night may have been worse.  Handed an 8-2 lead after 3 1/2 innings, Sox "ace" Josh Beckett did not pitch like it.

One night after the Sox had squandered a three-run lead in Toronto, they did themselves one worse, giving up a game in which they had knocked the opposing starter out after just three innings and held a six-run lead.

“Those are games we certainly need to win, and we didn’t,’’ Francona said.

In the end, though, this was about Josh Beckett.

Coupled with Beckett’s last performance, against the Yankees Aug. 8, the Sox starter has now allowed 13 earned runs over his last 9 2/3 innings, his ERA ballooning even further to 6.51. He failed to get out of the fifth inning in his last start, and just made it through the fifth last night, each time putting a burden on a bullpen that hasn’t always been up to the challenge.

The Sox and August "swoons" are the stuff of legends ... and photoshop contests.  Well, the truth hurts sometimes.  There will certainly be nights when a Cliff Lee or a C.C. Sabathia pitches a gem.  And there'll be nights when your own starter is roughed up and knocked out.  But losing three run leads in the ninth inning, or six run leads in the fourth after roughing up the opposition starter leaves a lasting hurt among the players and the fans.

Sure, they've had a lot of injuries this year, with a lot of games lost to injury by star players.  Josh Beckett, Victor Martinez, Dustin Pedroia, Kevin Youkilis Mike Cameron.  You're not going to win them all.  But you have to win the ones you should.  And right now the Sox aren't doing it, largely due to an inept bullpen and a closer, Jonathan Papelbon, who lacks command of the strike zone.

Former Baltimore Orioles' pitching coach Ray Miller used to teach the mantra, "work fast, change speeds, throw strikes" to his pitchers to get them to be successful.  For a closer, Papelbon doesn't work fast, rarely changes speeds, and when he does he rarely throws that change for strikes.  On top of that, his 94-96 mph fastball is wild in the strike zone, outside when it should be in, or finding the middle of the plate.  The opposing hitters wouldn't be in the bigs if they couldn't hit fastballs.  He has a lot of saves this year, but not many of them were "easy saves," retiring his assigned three hitters in order.

At this point you can only really hope that the bullpen comes around a little and at least doesn't blow the easy ones.  That the other four starters - Lackey, Lester, Matsuzaka and Bucholz - continue to pitch well and deep into games.  And that Dustin Pedroia returns to help an offense that hasn't been as bad as predicted.

Howard Zinn, Communism, And My Alma Mater

So the FBI released their file on the late former Boston University History professor (24 years, from 1964 to 1988) and, lo and behold, Howard Zinn, the leftist author of A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present, seems clearly to have been for most of his adult life, and for all of the years he taught at my alma mater, a member of the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA).  At the link RS McCain ('The Other McCain') has been digging through the document dump and finds Mr. Zinn present at CPUSA meetings in Brooklyn, possessing strong ties to communist front groups, and involvement with and leadership of numerous CPUSA-backed "protest" movements, leading up to the radical anti-war movement in the 1960's.  Read Mr. McCain's entire post, which includes screenshots from the documents, transcription, and historical details that provide color and context.

The three sets of documents cover the time from 1949 to 1968 (pdf, 284 pages), 1969 to 1974 (119 pages) and 1974 (20 pages).

Via TPM Muckraker I found this interesting set of quotes from Mr. Zinn, delivered at a protest outside a Boston police station, demanding the release of Bobby Seale of the Black Panther Party.  The quote was mentioned in the context of efforts to get the FBI to assist with an effort to oust Mr. Zinn from BU, which never happened.

... ZINN, as featured speaker, spoke in front of Boston Police Headquarters on 4/14/70 in connection with a rally held for the release of BOBBY SEALE, BPP National Chairman. ZINN stated "it's about time we had a demonstration at the Police Station. Police in every nation are a blight and the United States is no exception.

ZINN further sated [sic] "America has been a police state for a long time. I believe that policemen should not have guns. I believe they should be disarmed. Policemen with guns are a danger to the community and themselves."

If this is what passes for critical thinking among the intellectual leaders on the left, I am both amused and dismayed.

And speaking of dismayed, Boston University continues to hold Howard Zinn in high regard.  This obituary in BU Today, from January 2010, is effusive.  In it, Mr. Zinn demonstrates more of this vaunted critical thinking.

He joined BU’s political science department in 1964, at the beginning of the anti–Vietnam War movement. “War is not complicated,” Zinn said. “War is simple. It’s like a drug. It’s like crack. You get a high from victory in war . . . My conclusions about war led me to become an activist against the war in Vietnam and to write about the nature of war.”

Right.  Wars happen just so that the combatants can feel good, get high on killing and winning.  It seems much more likely that his affinity for Marxism led him to become an activist against a war with a communist opponent.  At the bottom of the page is a video of Mr. Zinn offering advice to President Obama, from October 2009.  In it he is wrong about Iraq, wrong about Vietnam, and misleads and dissembles about "big government," among other things.  He also advises negotiating with the Taliban, an organization with a stellar record on civil rights, gender equality and tolerance to be sure.  Have a look.

My advice to Boston U?  Start to unravel the Howard Zinn Lecture Series, or at least use it to counterbalance the radical leftist ideology that Mr. Zinn espoused and taught.  Having an avowed, and active, communist as a treasured member of the faculty for 24 years is not a mark of honor.

8/1/10 0930:  Reading on, I found a lengthy post from Rick Moran.  I'm having a tough time reconciling the following paragraphs.  Perhaps he can help me out.

For many of us who read A People’s History of the United States and were transfixed by the voices Zinn brought to life - the voices of the underclass, blacks, women, and others who had been silenced in American history textbooks - there was rush of insight not granted us previously . Social history had, until that time, been quite selective in which voices were heard. ...

On the other hand, the raw emotionalism expressed by Zinn’s subjects was a splash of cold water on many reader’s sophomoric notions of America. People beat down by capitalism, racism, and sexism have lost hope and optimism and all that’s left is a cynical loathing that makes many of our pretentious twaddle about America ring quite hollow.

and then later, this

Zinn wasn’t much of an historian. Most Marxists aren’t. Not only was Zinn rightly accused of shoddy scholarship, but his deterministic view of of history ultimately warped his writing, making it banally predictable and ridiculously shallow. Human beings are not motivated by what the economic determinists believe, nor do they act the way that most historical materialsts conclude they should. It is a tragedy that Zinn himself is taken seriously by so many.

Given the reality of Mr. Zinn's CPUSA activities and membership, and given the (I believe) correct analysis in the latter paragraph, doesn't that indict the analysis of the first snippet?

As Massachusetts Goes

So goes the USA?  Megan McArdle at The Atlantic has a look at the scrambling being done in the Bay State to cover, jerry-rig or otherwise manipulate the problems that plague the state's health reform/universal coverage plan into something marginally tolerable.

Even if you're in favor of the healthy reform, this is a lousy, desperate way to go about it.  This kinds of mandatory "contributions" are essentially a punishment for past, legal behavior.  Practically, they tend to be vulnerable to regulatory takings challenges.  Economically, they dramatically ratchet up the risks of doing business in Massachusetts...

The quality of legislation coming out of Massachusetts on this stuff right now is really frighteningly bad.  There's none of the technocratic fine tuning that we were assured was the greatest reward of this sort of program, just crude, blanket rules that do much reflect the realities of the market.  Rather, they're a cathartic outlet for legislators frustration that any reality exists outside of the power of their pens.

Just wait until we see these kinds of gamesmanship, punitive fines, regulations and takings on a national basis when the audaciously promised "savings" from health care reform fail to materialize, along with the loss of private insurance, the loss of your doctor, and the loss of the quality that was personified in the American medical system.

The legislature, in order to stick a finger in the dike of insurance losses, is trying to siphon $100M from successful profits.  Call it a "windfall profits" tax, a one-time taking.  Just to, you know, solve the problem.

But that won't solve the problem, merely postpone it.  And when it has to be done again, they'll call it one-and-done once more, won't they?

There is a version of Murphy's Law that says that no system can be foolproof because fools are so ingenious.  The corollary is that no foolproof system can be devised by fools.  And what is a legislature if not foolish for thinking that such a system is even possible?

Beanpot Monday

And another Terrier win puts them in the final, 25th time in 27 years.  Boston U. doesn't win every Beanpot title.  It just seems like it.  They'll be facing a Boston College team that they vanquished 3-2 in the Frozen Fenway nightcap game, in the snow, on January 8.

Here's the history of the Beanpot Tournament plays out on the first two Mondays in February.  It's a college hockey gathering, with Harvard, Boston College, Boston University and Northeastern in a rotating semifinals-one-week-consolation and final- next week format.  And Boston University has been the dominant team, winning 12 of the last 15 titles, and were in all but one of those finals.  BC has won the other 3.  This has been a down year for BU, comong off their national championship in '09, but they may be rounding into form at just the right time.

Fine, As Long As It's Not Mr. Frank That Does It

Abolish Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and rebuild government financing of housing from scratch?  Barney Frank, D-MA, the chairman of the House Financial services committee, thinks it's a good idea.

A top House Democrat on Friday said his committee was preparing to recommend "abolishing" mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and rebuilding the U.S. housing-finance system from scratch.

"The remedy here is...as I believe this committee will be recommending, abolishing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in their current form and coming up with a whole new system of housing finance," said Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.), the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Frank's history with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac does not inspire confidence in his competence to oversee the job.  Let's review.

Taxpayers are now on the hook for as much as $200 billion to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and if you want to know why, look no further than the rapid response to this bailout from House baron Barney Frank. Asked about Treasury's modest bailout condition that the companies reduce the size of their high-risk mortgage-backed securities (MBS) portfolios starting in 2010, Mr. Frank was quoted on Monday as saying, "Good luck on that," and that it would never happen.

There you have the Fannie Mae problem in profile. Mr. Frank wants you to pick up the tab for its failures, while he still vows to block a reform that might prevent the same disaster from happening again.

At least the Massachusetts Democrat is consistent. His record is close to perfect as a stalwart opponent of reforming the two companies, going back more than a decade. The first concerted push to rein in Fan and Fred in Congress came as far back as 1992, and Mr. Frank was right there, standing athwart. But things really picked up this decade, and Barney was there at every turn.

Please go read the Wall Street Journal's concise summary of his involvement, none of it helpful, in the mortgage giants.  Here's more from the WSJ, circa 2004.  Here's the NY Times, in 2003, discussing the Bush Administration - yes, that evil and incompetent Bush Administration - proposal to reform the GSEs:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

Mr. Frank's response then?:

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Perceptive.  And here's the Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby, in 2008, with a further indictment.

'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it."

That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. ... The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.' "

In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.

Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.

All of this from Mr. Frank now is happening because his knees are shaking over the election of Sen. Scott Brown on Tuesday.  Independent voters in Massachusetts are in a mood to turn the bums out, and one of those bums, if you've absorbed anything at all from the stories above, is Mr. Frank.  So he proposes abolishing and reforming mortgage financing, and now he'll present himself to the voters later this year as a white knight, riding to the rescue.  Rather cynical, I'd say.

So definitely, let's reform the companies, or abolish them, it matters not.  What matters is setting appropriate lending standards, ones that do not expose banks, then GSEs, then eventually taxpayers to excessive and unaffordable risk.

Just don't let Barney do it.  And don't let him get away with avoiding his responsibility for the crisis.  As Jeff Jacoby writes, his fingerprints are all over it.

Strike Three

Not a good year for the cleanup hitter, Obama.  First he goes to Virginia to help out Creigh Deeds.  Strike one.

Then it was a trip north, to Bruce Springsteen's home state, to help out incumbent Governor Jon Corzine.  Doh!!  Strike two.

Finally, when that Senate supermajority was threatned by, gasp, a Republican in Massachusetts, he traveled to the home of the Red Sox, leaving his Pale Hose jacket at home, to stump for Martha Coakley.  Strike three.

Yer out, bub, grab some pine.

The Shot Heard 'Round The World

Ralph Waldo Emerson's Concord Hymn recalls the "shot heard 'round the world" at Lexington Green in Massachusetts, the start of the American Revolution.  April 1775, two hundred and thirty-five years ago.

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
     Their flag to April's breeze unfurled;
Here once the embattled farmers stood;
     And fired the shot heard round the world.

The foe long since in silence slept;
     Alike the conqueror silent sleeps,
     And Time the ruined bridge has swept
     Down the dark stream that seaward creeps.

On this green bank, by this soft stream,
     We place with joy a votive stone,
That memory may their deeds redeem,
     When, like our sires, our sons are gone.

O Thou who made those heroes dare
     To die, and leave their children free, --
Bid Time and Nature gently spare
     The shaft we raised to them and Thee.

Massachusetts is once again the site of a shot heard round the world - the election of Republican candidate, now Senator, Scott Brown in the special election to fill the seat vacated with the passing of Ted Kennedy.  I noted earlier that this would be an odd legacy for Massachusetts former senior Senator - a vote by the people of his own state to seat a Senator who openly vowed to work to block his signature legislation.

Even odder is the insanity to which this has driven Democrats, particularly those in positions of power in Congress and in the Administration (I'm going to leave out Keith Olbermann, who has his own special brand of insanity).  And I won't be linking those insane comments.  Rather, I'm going to quote the one sane comment I've seen from a Democrat.

Even before the votes are counted, Senator Evan Bayh is warning fellow Democrats that ignoring the lessons of the Massachusetts Senate race will “lead to even further catastrophe” for their party. “There’s going to be a tendency on the part of our people to be in denial about all this,” Bayh told ABC News, but “if you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call, there’s no hope of waking up.”

Hey, if you won't listen to a "shot heard 'round the world," what, or who, else won't you listen to?

And yes, I am calling it for Brown.  With 62% reporting he leads 705,615 to 621,231.  That's 53% to 46%.

1/19/10 2120: Now it's 71% reporting, and it's 822209 to 719,458, and Channel 5 (local ABC- WCVB) is reporting that Ms. Coakley has called Mr. Brown to concede.  Her campaign party at the Sheraton Boston looked like a wake.

1/19/10 2300: Via Michelle Malkin, a shot heard 'round the world video.  Massachusetts Miracle, indeed.

Self-Parody, Thy Name Is 'Democrat'

As poll after poll has shown the remarkable turnaround, and likely win, in Massachusetts by Republican Scott Brown, there has been nothing quite as entertaining as the collective mental implosion of the Democrats, creating one self-parody after another.

There's the bumbling Kennedy, Patrick in this instance:

"If you don't, if you know that it takes eight years for George Bush and his cronies to put our country into this hole ... then you know we have a lot of digging to do, but some work needs to be done and this president's in the process of doing it and we need to get Marcia Coakley to help him to do that."

Marcia?  Here's Ted's version.

Then there's the continuing efforts to treat George W. Bush as Emmanuel Goldstein.

As audience members streamed out of Pres. Obama's rally on behalf of AG Martha Coakley (D) here tonight, the consensus was that the fault for Coakley's now-floundering MA SEN bid lies with one person -- George W. Bush.

"People are upset because there's so many problems," Rosemary Kverek, 70, a retired Charleston schoolteacher said as tonight's rally wrapped up. "But the problems came from the previous administration. So we're blaming poor Obama, who's working 36 hours a day ... to solve these problems that he inherited."...

36 hours a day?

More Kennedy: "One thing the Democrats have done wrong? We haven't kept the focus on this disaster on the Republicans who brought it upon us. We've tried too hard to do that right thing, and that's to fix it, as opposed to spend more of our time and energy pointing the finger at who got us [here] in the first place."

The comment stream after this story at Politico is priceless, and worth the extra 5-10 minutes of reading.  But it's not George W. Bush that has placed Ms. Coakley's ascension (and the "Kennedy Senate Seat") at risk.  First, as one of the commenters aptly points out:

"OMG! Bush tried and tried and tried to get Congress to address the problems with the housing market. It is on record and nobody seems to care."

Exactly... a fact that is not talked about.

LIBERALS... please read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?pagewanted=all

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Case closed, folks. Stop blaming Bush for the housing crisis. He had way too much on his plate with 911 and all that followed... and still his administration warned about the housing crisis in 2003!

Please vote for Scott Brown and send these ignorant Dems a message.

Second, it's not just that Ms. Coakley has been a terrible campaigner,

Coakley seems afraid to say what she believes in, giving voters reason to conclude she believes in nothing. With healthcare reform, she sounds like she believes in what’s necessary at any given moment.

sniffing down her nose at the concept that she'd even have to try to win votes.  And it's not just that ObamaCare, and the bribes, arm-twisting and 2000 page bills that sprang from the fervid imaginations of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, is so darn problematic.  It's both.

While this is all terribly amusing, it's also not a done deal.  "Massachusettes" is a wholly operated arm of the Democratic party, and they will not tolerate a Republican interloper usurping power in such an unseemly fashion.  By, you know, winning an election.  It will go down to the wire.

It shouldn't, but it will.

1/18/10 1630: Polls, polls, polls

Fox Boston:  A poll released a day before the special Senate race shows Senator Scott Brown surging to a double-digit lead over Attorney General Martha Coakley in the race for the open Massachusetts Senate seat.

The shift in favor of the Republican Party is a potential disaster for President Barack Obama and his Democratic political agenda.

PPP:  Over the last week Brown has continued his dominance with independents and increased his ability to win over Obama voters as Coakley's favorability numbers have declined into negative territory.

Ted Kennedy's Legacy?

The "legendary" senator from Massachusetts was a proponent of government run health care of the single-payer variety.  Oh, I know, he just wanted "reform" of this heinous system that leaves millions of uninsured Americans (and illegal immigrants) without medical care.  No, actually, that's not right either.  It leaves them without insurance.  They get health care, albeit not as conveniently as those with insurance.  In any event, he wanted single payer.  Let's quote from his convention speech in 1980:

Finally, we cannot have a fair prosperity in isolation from a fair society. So I will continue to stand for a national health insurance. We must -- We must not surrender -- We must not surrender to the relentless medical inflation that can bankrupt almost anyone and that may soon break the budgets of government at every level. Let us insist on real controls over what doctors and hospitals can charge, and let us resolve that the state of a family's health shall never depend on the size of a family's wealth.

The President, the Vice President, the members of Congress have a medical plan that meets their needs in full, and whenever senators and representatives catch a little cold, the Capitol physician will see them immediately, treat them promptly, fill a prescription on the spot. We do not get a bill even if we ask for it, and when do you think was the last time a member of Congress asked for a bill from the Federal Government? And I say again, as I have before, if health insurance is good enough for the President, the Vice President, the Congress of the United States, then it's good enough for you and every family in America.

There you have it.  "National health insurance," complete with wage and price controls dictated in Washington.  The second paragraph I include simply for the amusing child-like innocence on the part of the speaker, and the assumption of a similar innocence in the listening audience.  Could he really have no clue as to what the government (i.e., taxpayers) paid for the health insurance and subsequent care that he received?  Could he really believe that because he is a Senator the government is in control of the finances of the private sector doctors and hospitals he visits?

Well, the ultimate Ted Kennedy legacy may be written next Tuesday: the election of a Republican for what was his Senate seat by the voters of Massachusetts, one who is campaigning with the looming healthcare monstrosity (and his opposition to it) front and center.

"He’s making health care a front-and-center issue in the most liberal state in the country, and it’s working for him,’’ said Whit Ayres, who cofounded Resurgent Republic, a group of conservative pollsters and strategists formed to shape the national debate. “That’s the major message - that this bill is an albatross around the necks of the Democrats, and if it works this well in Massachusetts, just imagine how well it will work in less liberal states."...

He has called for Congress to “go back to the drawing board’’ and come up with a new plan. And he has capitalized on speculation about whether Democrats might try to delay his confirmation if he wins in order to ram the health bill through, stoking concerns about transparency and fairness raised by special deals Democratic leaders made last year to entice fence-sitters to vote for the bill.

“Threatening to ignore the results of a free election and steal this Senate vote from the people of Massachusetts takes their schemes to a whole new level,’’ the Brown campaign said in a recent statement, in a burst of rhetoric that has been typical of his camp. A spokesman for Brown declined to comment for this story.

Polls have the race swinging dramatically to Republican Scott Brown.  A robo-poll from Pajamas Media shows an even bigger gap, one which would be shocking if accurate for a state like Massachusetts.  Jennifer Rubin writes:

Since September, the country has witnessed the visible battle over ObamaCare — late-night votes, Cash for Cloture deals, and a bill that offends a wide array of groups. Democrats have never looked up or paused to consider the public’s views on the matter. They tell us they will “sell it” to us later. That arrogant defiance of public opinion and the unseemly legislative process that produced a grossly unpopular bill have fueled a resurgence of anger and determination among conservatives and even usually apathetic independents. They now are anxious to send a message to Washington: stop ignoring the voters.

Exactly.  Speaking in generalities majorities are in favor of "the government" taking care of people who need help.  Once the majorities see what the nuts and bolts of such a commitment entails with health care those majorities flip, which is precisely what we're witnessing.  The people of Kennedy's own state, now that they see the devils in the details - higher taxes, ballooning federal spending, scarcity in health care, reduced quality, waits and rationing - are realizing that a system that provides quality care to even those without insurance is better than a system designed to insure everyone at, eventually, the cost of that quality.

Senator Kennedy called nationalized health care "the cause of my life."  The people of Massachusetts, now that they see what that entails, may say to forget it.  As for his legacy, it may always have been ... well ...  something else, regardless.

1/17/10 2300: Jeff Jacoby with more:

What Obama and his party delivered, however, was not uplifting and transparent bipartisanship.

It was trillion-dollar increases in government spending. It was party-line votes on 2,000-page bills. It was “cash-for-cloture’’ backroom deals. It was tone-deaf boasts about millions of jobs “created or saved,’’ even as unemployment soared into double digits and millions of American jobs disappeared.

Above all, it was the attempt to force through a radical health-care overhaul that would drive up the cost of medical insurance, slash Medicare by half a trillion dollars, and subject one-seventh of the US economy to government micromanagement...

A year ago, Americans were enchanted with their new president. Today they are suffering from severe buyer’s remorse. Massachusetts may be the bluest state, but voters here are fed up too.

Just Wait 'Til They Get Hold Of Healthcare

It seems that the number of 'stimulus' jobs 'created or saved' in Massachusetts were a lot fewer than reported.  Who says so?  Why, the area's biggest Democratic support apparatus, The Boston Globe, who else?

While Massachusetts recipients of federal stimulus money collectively report 12,374 jobs saved or created, a Globe review shows that number is wildly exaggerated. Organizations that received stimulus money miscounted jobs, filed erroneous figures, or claimed jobs for work that has not yet started...

The federal stimulus report for Massachusetts has so many errors, missing data, or estimates instead of actual job counts that it may be impossible to accurately tally how many people have been employed by the massive infusion of federal money. Massachusetts is expected to receive an estimated $1 billion more in stimulus contracts, grants, and loans.

Awesome.  And guess what's on the way now?  More 'stimulus,' because the last one worked so well.

Senate Democrats will take up a new job-creation bill in the wake of the 10.2 percent unemployment rate, Majority Leader Harry Reid told his colleagues Tuesday.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) told The Hill that Reid (D-Nev.) made the announcement about a new jobs bill at the Senate Democrats’ weekly lunch.

Reid said he was looking at an initiative focused on job creation “and that our caucus will take it up,” Cardin said.

You want to help the economy, Senator?  Stop spending like Nicholas Cage, and stop demonizing private business, entrepreneurship and "the wealthy," because those are the foundation on which the economic recovery needs to be built.

11/11/09 1730: Ed needs to add Massachusetts to the list.  I guess the next question is which liberals/Democrats/journalists (BIRM) will be using the number 640,239 in their talking points?

11/12/09 1145: And now he has.  The sample size may now be large enough to safely assume that every state grossly inflated their 'stimulus' numbers for jobs 'created or saved.'  As a result, we know the number is lower.  Much, much lower.

(Sorry about the duplicate post - it's been deleted.)

Massachusetts Senators: The Silence Of The Globe

The Boston Globe is reporting that, now that the uber-majority Democratic Massachusetts legislature has confirmed that they are, indeed, hypocrites, Governor Deval Patrick, he of the 19% approval ratings, is itching to put Kennedy acolyte Paul G.Kirk Jr. in the Senate as the Democrats 60th vote.

Governor Deval Patrick huddled with a small group of trusted advisers last night to finalize his choice for an interim US senator, with indications pointing to former Democratic National Committee chairman Paul G. Kirk Jr., who has the strong backing of the immediate family of the late Edward M. Kennedy, as the overwhelming favorite.

Best to let the Kennedy family manipulate the choice, don't you think?  Nowhere in the article does it tell you something key about this appointment - that it cannot be made for 90 days, unless there is an "emergency."  To find that tidbit you have to go to an alternate source, in this case The Hill.

The Massachusetts Legislature on Wednesday granted Gov. Deval Patrick the power to appoint a temporary replacement for the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, but with one catch: when the appointment can be made.

Lawmakers declined to allow the law to go into effect immediately, meaning Patrick (D) will either have to declare an emergency situation or wait 90 days to name Kennedy’s (D) successor.

The governor said after press time last night that he would declare an emergency so he can make the pick right away. He has scheduled an 11 a.m. announcement for Thursday.

Republicans have toyed with the idea of challenging Patrick’s legal authority to declare such an emergency, and legal challenges could also come from citizens.

Some "emergency."  In 2004 the law was changed to prevent Gov. Romney from appointing a Republican in the event of a John Kerry election win.  Sen. Kennedy had been absent more often than not prior to his death; if it were an "emergency" then he should have resigned to allow a functioning senator to be elected or selected long ago.  None of Mr. Obama's myriad legislative priorities, including health care, is so dire that national needs dictate such an emergency.

So, where's the fire?  The Globe's dereliction of reporting here needs to be emphasized.  Could it be that they don't want to inform a troublesome "by the book" citizen of their option to challenge the "emergenccy" designation?  That's responsible journalism, there, ignoring those unpleasant (for Democrats) facts.

Predictable Massachusetts Shenanigans

The Boston Globe reports on the desperate need to provide the state of Massachusetts and the US Senate an immediate replacement for Ted Kennedy.

Legislative leaders on Beacon Hill believe they have narrow majorities in both chambers to give Governor Deval Patrick the power to appoint an interim US senator, in a sign that the controversial measure may pass. But the bill must still survive Republican attempts to delay or kill it through parliamentary maneuvers...

Patrick has signaled privately that he’d like to sign the bill by Friday and make an appointment within days, possibly having an interim senator in place by next week.

But in the other chamber, Senate President Therese Murray has remained far more reserved in her support, talking with senators but not advocating for the change, according to Senate sources.

One high-ranking Senate official familiar with the vote count said the numbers are there for passage - but narrowly. It is that chamber that Republican Richard Tisei, the Senate minority leader, will try to table the bill with the hopes of delaying it beyond its usefulness, or shaming Democrats who are on the fence over to his side.

They're wasting time.  They should just go with my original suggestion.

9/16/09 1640: Oh, well, if the White House wants it, it must be vital.  (See "stimulus," Cap & Trade)

This Just In - Tax Policies Effect Behavior

In Florida, a first-in-a-generation net population loss has an unsurprising source.

A few years ago, journalists - citing the chasm between Miami's high cost of living and its low level of income - began predicting that South Florida and its perpetual population-growth machine would soon face the unthinkable: a falling head count. Now it's official. The region - Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties - lost 27,400 residents between 2008 and 2009, while Florida as a whole lost 58,000. That's not exactly a mass exodus for a state of 18 million; but it's the first net outflow in 63 years for a state that considers itself the new California...

... Homeowners, especially in Broward and Miami-Dade, have been falling out of their flip-flops in recent days as they open their preliminary property-tax notices to find increases of 15% or more. That's sizable in a low-income region where the median property-tax bill is already some $3,000, and it's doubly frustrating given that property values have slid by some 25% during Florida's housing bust. Residents have barely digested the recent news that their hurricane-insurance premiums, which can top $5,000 a year for most South Florida homes, will rise 10% a year for the next three years (vital, officials claim, for handling claims from the next big storm). And their public utility, Florida Power & Light (FPL), is lobbying the state for a 30% rate hike (vital, FPL execs insist, for upgrading infrastructure). "It all seems out of control to people here at the time when they can least absorb it," says Dr. Jose Valladares, president of the conservative Fair Property Tax for All in Miami-Dade. (Read about Florida's property-tax revolt.)

Granted, most local governments often have to raise taxes when they're staring at fiscal craters like the $427 million shortfall in Miami-Dade's proposed $7.83 billion budget.

"Have to?"  Why, particularly, do they have to raise taxes? Cutting spending isn't an option?  I'm sure that absolutely every single dollar of money spent in Miami-Dade county is essential, priority, grade A government spending.  $427 million out of a $7.83 billion is about  5.45%.  It's not like the citizenry, in this time of rising unemployment, falling home values, and stagnant wages has a lot of extra dollars to throw the way of the government.  It's not like these citizens can vote themselves a pay raise or pay out large bonuses to themselves or their workers in a down time.

Florida is now learning the definition of "taxigrent."  Being from New Hampshire, and having had my business leave the high tax state to the south just last year, I find myself bemused by this definition in the Urban Dictionary.

Taxigrent (n) Tax + emigrant, or tax + immigrant. Someone purposefully moving from a high-tax location to a low-tax location, e.g. from Boston, Taxachusetts, to Live-Free-And-Die, New Hampshire, where there's no personal income tax or sales tax.

On The Passing Of Senator Edward M. Kennedy

Senator Ted Kennedy has died after roughly 18 months fighting brain cancer.  He was 77.  The Boston Globe, predictably, is effusive, with dozens of stories already posted.

“Teddy,’’ as he was known to intimates, constituents, and even his fiercest enemies, was an unwavering symbol to the left and the right - the former for his unapologetic embrace of liberalism, and latter for his value as a political target.

He will be eulogized as the consummate "legislator," but his legislative efforts were directed always at moving the nation to the left.  His unfulfilled (to this point) passion for universal health care is yet another example.  That he dedicated his life to public service is admirable.  That he was wrong in so many areas on the direction the country should move is not.

As with any passing, I wish his family peace.  But I think the lead paragraph in the Globe story says something worth repeating.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who carried aloft the torch of a Massachusetts dynasty and a liberal ideology to the citadel of Senate power, but whose personal and political failings may have prevented him from realizing the ultimate prize of the presidency...

First, I think we can all come up with some of those "personal and political failings" as we ponder his life.  Second, it speaks volumes that the Kennedys and the Globe considered the presidency the "ultimate prize."  It is not.  It is the ultimate honor.

8/26/09 1500: Paragraph 17.  That's how long it took the Associated Press to mention the hypocrisy of changing the succession law back to allow Massachusetts Democratic Governor to appoint Sen. Kennedy's successor.  Paragraph 17.  That's a whole lot of reading to find out why the law is the way it is.

A Fellow New Hampshire Physician Looks South

Dr. Kevin Pho, an internist in Nashua, NH and blogger at KevinMD.com, has an opinion piece published at CNN of all places (CNN?!!) adding to information that I've previously noted.  His point in this piece is that a physician shortage, which is already present in some specialties, particularly in some geographic areas (due to a state's tort laws), will likely be exacerbated in internal medicine by the proposed health reform.  For evidence he has a look at the state to his (and my) south.

Today, 97 percent of Massachusetts residents have health insurance, the highest in the country. But less publicized are the unintended consequences that the influx of half a million newly insured patients has had on an unprepared primary care system.

The Massachusetts Medical Society reported that the average wait time for a new patient looking for a primary care doctor ranged from 36 to 50 days, with almost half of internal medicine physicians closing their doors entirely to new patients. And when you consider that Massachusetts already has the highest concentration of doctors nationwide, wait times will likely be worse in other, less physician-abundant parts of the country, should universal coverage be enacted federally...

Massachusetts is finding out just how difficult it is to fiscally maintain universal coverage. In part due to soaring health costs, the state Legislature has proposed reducing health benefits for 30,000 legal immigrants and cutting funding to inner-city hospitals like Boston Medical Center, which, according to the Boston Globe, may "force it to slash programs and jeopardize care for thousands of poverty-stricken families."

It's important to remember that the pipeline of physicians is like a huge submarine.  It doesn't turn on a dime.  And so if there is a sudden and dramatic increase in patient volume or an increased need in a certain specialty it will take a minimum of 10 years to begin to fill the deficit.  Dr. Pho credits the draw of "more lucrative" specialty practice for nurse practitioners, physician assistants and MD's for worsening the shortage, but many of those "more lucrative" specialties have or anticipate their own shortages.

It's said that the definition of insanity is to repeatedly perform the same action and expect a different result.  President Obama can have a look at Massachusetts, and also Maine.  Maybe he thinks that if the federal government takes control of the situation for the entire nation the physicians, hospitals and other providers will be forced to accept the dictates handed down.  Perhaps, but then we're back to the underlying question.  Where will the needed physicians come from?

Hypocrisy And Massachusetts Senators

In 2004, Democratic Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts was running for President against George W. Bush's re-election bid, and Republican Mitt Romney was Governor of the state.  The state legislature sensing that if Sen. Kerry won the election Gov. Romney might appoint a - gasp -Republican to fill the seat, passed a law to provide that such vacancies would remain unfilled until a special election could be held in safely Democratic Massachusetts.

Because of a law Massachusetts lawmakers passed when Senator John F. Kerry ran for president in 2004, when they sought to blunt the effect of a possible Senate appointment by then-Governor Mitt Romney, a Republican, there is no appointment process to replace a vacancy in a US Senate seat. Instead, like only two other states, Oregon and Wisconsin, a special election would be held within several months to fill a seat.

Now, though, the shoe being on the other foot, there is movement to rescind the law, pushed by the ailing Sen. Kennedy* himself. The Boston Globe, predictably, portrays this as a selfless act.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, in a poignant acknowledgment of his mortality at a critical time in the national health care debate, has privately asked the governor and legislative leaders to change the succession law to guarantee that Massachusetts will not lack a Senate vote when his seat becomes vacant.

In a personal, sometimes wistful letter sent Tuesday to Governor Deval L. Patrick, Senate President Therese Murray, and House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, Kennedy asks that Patrick be given authority to appoint someone to the seat temporarily before voters choose a new senator in a special election.

Although Kennedy, who is battling brain cancer, does not specifically mention his illness or the health care debate raging in Washington, the implication of his letter is clear: He is trying to make sure that the leading cause in his life, better health coverage for all, advances in the event of his death.

Then, when Gov. Patrick loses to the Republican challenger in 2010 (his approval rating in May was 28%) we can play more games with the process and revert to the 2004 law.  I suggest a simpler solution - a new law.

"Given that Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party, and given further that the staunchly Democratic Kennedy family is a Massachusetts treasure, no Republican shall be allowed to hold a federal elected position representing the people of the Commonwealth."

Problem solved.

*I have no ill will towards the Senator personally as he and his family deal with his illness, though I disagree with him strongly on health care, and further think that his career should not have survived his past.  His illness does not change the hypocrisy demonstrated here.

8/20/09 1240: More from Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.

However, actions by a state legislature and demands by partisan hacks to keep going back and forth depending on the party registration of the Governor makes a mockery of the rule of law and underscores the fact that machine politics runs Massachusetts.

Hence my suggested new law.

BTW, welcome Ace Of Spades readers.  Thanks, Drew.

Dowdifying Obama

Maureen Dowd of the NY Times took on the controversy over the arrest of Harvard's Skip Gates for disorderly conduct in her most recent column.  Ms. Dowd is famous for modifying a quote from President Bush back in 2003 in a way that completely changed the meaning of the quote, the better to beat Mr. Bush over the head with it.  James Taranto, who pens the Wall Street Journal's 'Best of the Web' column, noted the story in this BOW posting from May 28, 2003, then was, I believe, the first to call it 'Dowdification' in a subsequent BOW on May 30.

Ms. Dowd is at it again, this time basing her column around her own interpretation of Mr. Obama's initial response to the Gates question in his press conference.   Here's her take:

President Obama was right the first time, that the encounter had a stupid ending, and the second time, that both Gates and Crowley overreacted. His soothing assessment that two good people got snared in a bad moment seems on target.

Except that's not what Mr. Obama said the first time.  He didn't point out that the episode had a "stupid ending," and his initial assessment was far from soothing - which was why he needed a second and third shot at it.  Here's his exact quote.

Now, I've -- I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. [ed: he should have stopped right here] But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.

And number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcing disproportion ately. That's just a fact.

I don't need to "dowdify" the quote to show that Ms. Dowd is wrong here.  Mr. Obama would have been correct to say that it had a "stupid ending," and such a conclusion, given that he admitted not knowing all the facts, would have been appropriately non-accusative.  Either party could be wrong in such a "stupid ending," and without all the facts that's about all he could really say.

However, that's not what Mr. Obama said.  The President said that "the Cambridge police acted stupidly."  That's not the comment of an informed neutral observer.  That's advocating for one side, that of his friend, in a situation where, as he just stated, he doesn't have all the facts.  Frankly, that's just stupid.  Adding insult to injury, he implied in his point three that he believed the episode represented racial profiling by even bringing up that history.

Ms. Dowd's column has a lot of other problems, such as talking to Professor Gates to get his side but not to Sgt. Crowley.  And, after asserting that "two good people got snared in a bad moment" she allows the one party she interviews - Gates - to repeatedly smear Crowley while playing for sympathy.  It's sad, because the NY Times and Maureen Dowd can and should do better.  She needs to stop making the facts fit the point she wishes to drive home, and instead assess honestly the facts, and draw her conclusions from them.

7/27/09 0615: Mr. Taranto stopped by to point out that this is not, in fact, an example of 'dowdification'.  That's true, and I know it to be true, but I was at a loss for another term directly referencing Ms. Dowd which would refer to a deliberate and convenient misinterpretation of the meaning of a quote (as opposed to to true 'dowdification,' editing out selected material in a quote by which the meaning is altered).  Perhaps I've done this to the term 'dowdification' itself?

Implicit In The Words - Gates, Crowley, and Obama

By now everyone is aware that President Obama stuck his foot in it the other night.  He was asked a question about the arrest of a friend, Henry Louis (Skip) Gates of Harvard, for disorderly conduct after policemen were called to Prof. Gates' home when a woman saw two men jimmying the door to get in.  It turned out that the men were Gates himself and another man, and it was his home.  A disturbance ensued when, it appears, Gates (who is black) accused Sgt. James Crowley (who is white) of racist intent.  Here's Pres. Obama answering the question at his press conference.

The Sgt. Crowley was accompanied by a black officer, who supported the arrest.  In the Washington Post Mr. Obama tries to clean up the mess he made by saying that the cops "acted stupidly."

"Because of our history, because of the difficulties of the past, you know, African Americans are sensitive to these issues," said Obama, who sponsored legislation to track the racial breakdown of drivers stopped by police when he was an Illinois state senator. "And even when you've got a police officer who has a fine track record on racial sensitivity, interactions between police officers and the African American community can sometimes be fraught with misunderstanding."

Allow me to translate.  Mr. Obama is insisting that it's natural for African Americans to assume police are racist a priori ("fraught with misunderstanding") because there have been some racial issues with cops in the past, even if they have not been subject to such racist actions themselves.  Patterico, rightly I believe, asserts that Professor Gates was stereotyping the cop in this way.  Implicit in Mr. Obama's words is that he believes that stereotyping the police in that way by an African American is appriopriate.

It is not appropriate.  When is the post-racial president going to start acting post-racial?

7/25/09 1420: Mark Steyn on "boundless elasticity"

A black president, a black governor and a black mayor all agree with a black Harvard professor that he was racially profiled by a white-Latino-black police team, headed by a cop who teaches courses in how to avoid racial profiling. The boundless elasticity of such endemic racism suggests that the "post-racial America" will be living with blowhard grievance-mongers like professor Gates unto the end of time.

Burton's Boards Vs. Brattleboro's Bods

Vermont is a strange state.  There is liberal angst in the state, particularly in ski areas, over risque photos of Playboy Playmates on the equipment of snowboarders.

BURLINGTON, Vt. - For Nicole Zarrillo, seeing a snowboarder with one of Burton Snowboards' new Playboy designs at a Vermont ski slope underscored the reasons why many Vermonters - including her boss - are protesting the new men's snowboards.

"When you really think about it, it's a young man standing on top of a naked woman's body," said Zarrillo, 38, an office manager for a nonprofit based in Burlington, also home to Burton's headquarters. "I probably could have gotten past it, because I try to have an open mind, but seeing it like that, it's offensive."

Burton Snowboards, located in Vermont's largest city since 1992, cemented its reputation among Vermonters as a progressive company through employee benefits such as matching child-care payments and paying for half of a worker's gym membership.

Yet the company has found itself at the center of a grow ing controversy in the liberal state, with residents, students, and politicians debating free speech and sexism on the ski slopes. The Burlington City Council discussed asking Burton to withdraw the boards, and the Girl Scout Council of Vermont is considering taking concerns to lawmakers next month.

See, "progressive" is just another word for PC and liberal.  Burton was "progressive" in offering benefits like matching child care.  But photos on boards?  This is, of course, the same state that thought teens hanging out naked in the city was fine and dandy.

Ah, liberal Vermont.  Where the maple syrup flows, the air is pristine, the skiing is divine, and teenagers with too much free time on their hands can be seen - really seen - on every street corner.

The nudity began in earnest this year, Brooks said, when one young woman decided she wanted to bare her chest in public, just like her male friends.

Since then, the no-clothes fashion has gained popularity and has expanded to include group bike rides, skateboarding, hula-hoop contests, and a grass-roots music event that the group dubbed the Brat Fest.

In Vermont, it seems, it is quite alright to be naked in public*, but to be seen with a tasteful nude photograph is awful, just awful.

*a law banning the practice was considered, then rejected in 2007.

So Long, Manny

Hey, with two World Series wins in four years, including the '04 curse-busting edition, it was a productive 7 1/2 years in Boston.  And the batting numbers were consistently superb.  But this year, Manny, you jumped the shark.  Pushing down an older Sox traveling secretary because he couldn't come up with enough tickets for you and fuming about a contract that pays you $20 million this year (as it has for the last seven, and could have for another two with good behavior) finally pushed Theo Epstein where he didn't want to go.

Maybe it's Scott Boras behind the scenes creating enough turmoil to get his new client a new contract, the only way he can make any money off of said new client.  In any event, it became apparent that Manny's time in Boston would end either at the trade deadline, as it did, or at the end of the season when they'd let him go to free agency.

And the strange thing is, from my view at least, all he had to do was to be a little more of a good citizen, be more appreciative of the $160 million the Sox paid him over the years, and give 90% 90% of the time to be one of the more revered legendary Red Sox players.  With four more years of production (he's 36) he could have stats that only one other player in major league history has.  He already helped bring Boston two championships.  He puts up .300 - 30 - 120 - .900 (or better) virtually every year.  He's a classic four-hole hitter who makes opposing teams plan around him.

So he'll move to LA and put in a productive two months, and Boston will adjust to having Jason Bay in left field.  As Gerry Callahan notes, Bay does a lot of good things Manny doesn't do.

Maybe Jason Bay will not be quite the cleanup hitter that Ramirez was (then again, maybe he will be), but we know this much before he even takes the field for the Red Sox: He is a better fielder, a better baserunner, a better teammate, a better person.

But as Steve Phillips noted on ESPN last evening in discussing the trade, the Red Sox on the field are likely a slightly worse team today than yesterday.  Based on their performance since the All-Star break they might not be going anywhere this year anyway.

8/2/08 0840: So they win game one without Manny, and the new guy leads the way.  Go figure.

[Jason] Bay set the winning rally in motion with a towering fly ball to left-center against A's lefty Alan Embree that took one of those friendly Fenway caroms, turning what would normally be a double into a triple. It was Bay's first hit as a member of the Red Sox, but the fourth time on the night he reached base. He added a terrific sliding catch against Ryan Sweeney to end the top of the fifth.

Could Bay's first Fenway night have turned out any better?

"If that ball could have snuck out for me," quipped Bay. "I don't think so. I would have liked to do it in nine innings. It's been a long day. But it definitely ranks up there with one of the best moments I've had."

Some interesting comments from Manny's teammates.  I'll second Mike Lowell's take.

"To me, Manny is not a bad guy," said Red Sox third baseman Mike Lowell. "He's a different guy. But he's definitely not a bad guy. I think there was definitely a different sense that was going on in the clubhouse over the last week..."

"To me, he's the greatest hitter I've ever seen, being able to play with him," said Lowell. "I know there's other great hitters in the league, I just haven't been able to be their teammates. His swing is unbelievable. He really worked hard at trying to perfect it, which seems almost ridiculous, when you have such a perfect swing and you're trying to make it better..."

"He had a remarkable run here," said [Sox GM Theo] Epstein. "His whole career has been remarkable. He's one of the best right-handed hitters in history and his numbers speak for themselves. He was a key part of two World Series teams. No one can ever take that away from him. We're not going to..."

1B Kevin Youkilis: "We're happy that Jason Bay is here, because he's a great guy. I've talked to a couple of teammates in Pittsburgh, and they say he's a really good teammate and a really good guy. If you're going to replace Manny Ramirez, you're not going to replace his stats. If you're going to replace him, you're hoping to get a good teammate, and that's what we got."

[DH David] Ortiz wasn't overly retrospective when asked what he will remember most about Ramirez.  "Everybody knows," Ortiz said. "Ain't no cleanup hitter like that, you know what I'm saying?"

I certainly do, David.

Kennedy Press Release, Brought To You By The Mass. Medical Society

**UPDATE: The communications director for the MMS stopped by in the comments to take full credit for the press release.

I'm pretty sure this press release, ostensibly written by the Massachusetts Medical Society as an informational announcement to physicians, had input from other sources.  Reprinted nearly in its entirety:

Victory for Seniors and Physicians - Senate Passes Medicare Bill

The U.S. Senate today voted 69-30 to block a 10.6% cut in physician Medicare fees, while also adding a 0.5% increase for the rest of 2008 and a 1.1% increase for 2009.

In a moment of high drama, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy appeared on the floor of the Senate in the middle of the roll call vote. He was escorted by his son U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island, Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Barack Obama. The Senate chamber immediately erupted into a boisterous and prolonged round of cheers and applause.

Senators Kennedy and Kerry voted to support the bill. They have consistently supported physicians throughout the long effort to fix the Medicare payment formula.

Two weeks ago, the same bill failed by a single vote. Today when the final outcome became clear, nine Republicans who had voted against the bill two weeks ago voted yes. Most of them are up for re-election this year. Senators Gregg and Sununu of New Hampshire, who voted against the bill two weeks ago, voted no again today.

MMS President Bruce S. Auerbach, M.D. said, "Common sense prevailed, and a crisis in care has been avoided. The Senate did the right thing for our senior citizens and our physicians. A cut that large in reimbursements would have needlessly jeopardized access to health care for seniors, as well as endanger the viability of physician practices."

Dr. Auerbach needs to read "The Road To Serfdom."

Dr. Auerbach added, "We are thankful to Senators Kerry and Kennedy for voting 'yes,' and we are especially grateful to Senator Kennedy who, despite facing critical personal health problems, made a dramatic appearance in the Senate to cast his vote."

President Bush has said he will veto the bill, but 69 votes would override a veto. The House approved the same bill last month by a 5 to 1 margin, easily enough for an override.

Doctors are in the business of information gathering, and what this doesn't tell you could fill volumes ... which I will below in the extended entry.  But briefly, for those with a disabled mouse finger, what it doesn't tell you is why Senators Sununu and Gregg voted against the bill, and why President Bush threatens a veto.  The Medicare Advantage program allows seniors to continue private insurance plans paid for through the Medicare system.  This bill pays for the physician payment adjustment (preventing a 10% cut in reimbursements!) by gutting that program.  The no-votes and veto aren't about not caring if seniors have access to physicians or stopping payment cuts from bankrupting medical practices, they are about the struggle between private health care options and the efforts of Democrats to funnel seniors into a monolithic Medicare program.  If you want that information you need another source.

LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) -- Health insurers took a beating in the markets Thursday as investors played off the Senate's passage of a Medicare bill designed to avoid deep cuts in physician payments but that would end up cutting the Medicare Advantage program.

Reductions in Medicare Advantage could put a dent in the private fee-for-service arm of the government's health program for seniors that has helped inflate enrollment and revenue at a number of insurers. Analysts, however, seemed to think the potential effects would be muted.

           

"While our overall view of managed care remains negatively colored by the commercial underwriting cycle, we remain positive on [Medicare Advantage]," Goldman Sachs analyst Matthew Borsch said in a note to clients Thursday.

Or two.

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- President George W. Bush intends to veto the Medicare bill that passed the Senate on Wednesday, the White House said, repeating its concerns about cuts to the Medicare Advantage program.

The legislation would avoid deep cuts in Medicare reimbursements for physicians by maintaining physician payments at their current levels, with payments increasing 1.1% in 2009. The measure also makes cuts to companies that offer private Medicare Advantage plans. The cuts would come to "fee-for-service" plans and payments to private plans with teaching hospitals in their areas.

This MMS press release tells you none of that, instead presenting the three Republicans mentioned as the unquestioned black hats in a western showdown.  The MMS should be ashamed of themselves.  Being a physician is all about education, a lifetime of learning.  Presenting only a highly partisan snippet of the debate is a violation of that commitment.

Below, a discussion of SGR (and when that concept was invented), the Medicare Advantage program, and why Medicare's payment system is fatally flawed.

Another Canadian Writes About Healthcare

Earlier we heard from a Canadian foot and ankle specialist.  Now we hear from a Canadian mom.

I am the mother of a child with asthma. When my son had difficulty breathing randomly through the winter, I sought treatment. First I made an appointment with my doctor (2 week waiting time) so I could obtain a referral to a specialist. (In Canada you cannot just go to a specialist, you must get a referral from the gatekeepers: family doctors. Oh, and about 5 million Canadians don’t have one of those.) It took about six weeks for the specialist to get back to me with how long I’d have to wait for my son’s appointment: 12 months. Did I mention that periodically he couldn’t breathe?

Lately we've heard about the predictable cost overruns - despite extremely low provider payments - in Massachusetts "private" (ed: not really) universal care experiment.

This program was touted as the way to save money for everybody (well, except for those greedy doctors and insurance companies), and was to be a model for a national plan.

Well, guess what? It turns out to be costing a lot more than the backers predicted -- about $150 million more. (To mention that this is precisely what the detractors predicted is, of course, utterly irrelevant and borderline seditious in the Free People's Democratic Republic of Massachusetts.)

So, what's the Globe's solution? Any of you not saying "raise taxes!," stay after class for detention.

The experience of Tenn-Care could have told us this would happen.  It becomes a choice between freedom, innovation and availability on one hand vs. limited access, stagnation and central control on the other.  Sure, everyone can get care.  The question is will they, and at what cost?

Chafee And Rhode Island

So Lincoln Chafee, former senator from Rhode Island, has quit the party.  It truly is a sad day, one that demonstrates in spades the depths to which the GOP has sunk.  Ummm, actually, I jest.

PROVIDENCE — Lincoln D. Chafee, who lost his Senate seat in the wave of anti-Republican sentiment in last November’s election, said yesterday that he has left the party.

Chafee said he disaffiliated with the party he had helped lead, and his father had led before him, because the national Republican Party has gone too far away from his stance on too many critical issues, from war to economics to the environment.

“It’s not my party any more,” he said.

Chafee’s departure is another step in the waning of the strain of moderate Republicanism that was once a winning political philosophy from Rhode Island and Connecticut to the Canadian border. For the first time since the Civil War, the six New England states combined now have only one Republican U.S. House member, Connecticut’s Christopher Shays.

Chafee said he disaffiliated from the party “in June or July,” making him an unaffiliated voter. He did so quietly, and until yesterday, he said, “No one’s asked me about it.” He said he made the move because “I want my affiliation to accurately reflect my status.”

Well, he hinted at this move after his loss last year, which made the NY Times suggestion that he be appointed to replace John Bolton at the UN even more amusing.  But you have to remember several things in order to digest this.  First, Chafee's state is Rhode Island, home of the worst drivers in the nation.  The only reason he won in the first place was because he carried his father's famous name running as an appointed incumbent.  He lives in a state just as reliably Democratic as Massachusetts, home to the second worst drivers.  Second, if he's even remotely considering winning back his seat it wasn't going to happen as a Republican.  How do you cover up for the change?  You badmouth the party you're leaving.

It'd be a more significant statement were he to have done it after winning, rather than after losing.

I Was Sure He Didn't Have Another Fifty Years In Him

A sports drama featuring The Rocket, with a very special guest appearance by the brain of George Steinbrenner.  Enjoy.

Another Big Dig

Switzerland has created the longest overland tunnel on earth, connecting Germany and Italy through Switzerland, measuring almost 35 kilometers, and speeding travel through the Swiss Alps.

N THE LOETSCHBERG BASE TUNNEL, Switzerland - With a ceremony that went off like a classic Swiss timepiece, officials Friday inaugurated the world's longest overland tunnel, a 34.6-kilometer-long (21-mile-long) rail link under the Alps meant to ease highway traffic jams in the mountainous country.

The tunnel, which took eight years to build and cost 4.3 billion Swiss francs ($3.5 billion), will trim the time trains need to cross between Germany and Italy from 3 1/2 hours to just under two.

The first train through the tunnel was a freight carrying Swiss Transport Minister Moritz Leuenberger, arriving in the town of Frutigen at the tunnel's north entrance. It burst through a banner declaring "Loetschberg — Connecting Europe" to the cheers of more than 1,000 people and the popping of fireworks.

"We have moved a mountain," Leuenberger said.

Granted, it didn't have to be done in the middle of busy traffic in a busy city, but let's look at a brief comparison between this one and Boston's big dig.

• Boston: roughly $16 billion - Switzerland: $3.5 billion
• Boston: 20 years - Switzerland: 8 years
• Boston: about 2 miles, one new tunnel and a bridge, and several entrances and exits - Switzerland - a straight shot, but dug through several mountains and about 20 miles long.

Oh, and given the Swiss reputation for engineering precision and attention to detail, perhaps falling tunnel roof panels and civilian deaths can be avoided.  Maybe we should have brought the Swiss in and just handed them the project.

Quirky Manny

Manny Ramirez, the often puzzling but very talented Red Sox leftfielder, is trying to supplement his $20 million a year contract by selling on EBay.  For around $5000 dollars you could get his grill ... and an autographed baseball.

"Hi, I'm Manny Ramirez," the listing said. "I bought this AMAZING grill for about $4,000 and I used it once. ... But I never have the time to use it because I am always on the road. I would love to sell it and you will get an autographed ball signed by me.

"Enjoy it, Manny Ramirez."

Well, everyone can use a little extra cash.  I'd be concerned, though.  Every time you go to use it you'd have to wonder if it would turn on.  Ah, but when it does it'll perform beautifully.

It's just Manny being Manny.

And This Is Romney's Fault, How?

The Boston Globe has the scoop!  Mitt Romney hired illegal immigrant landscapers to groom his palatial Belmont, MA estate!  Can't you just feel the outrage building inside you, ready to explode.  I know I can.

As Governor Mitt Romney explores a presidential bid, he has grown outspoken in his criticism of illegal immigration. But, for a decade, the governor has used a landscaping company that relies heavily on workers like these, illegal Guatemalan immigrants, to maintain the grounds surrounding his pink Colonial house on Marsh Street in Belmont.

The Globe recently interviewed four current and former employees of Community Lawn Service with a Heart, the tiny Chelsea-based company that provides upkeep of Romney's property. All but one said they were in the United States illegally.

The employees told the Globe that company owner Ricardo Saenz never asked them to provide documents showing their immigration status and knew they were illegal immigrants.

"He never asked for papers," said Rosales, who said he had paid smugglers about $5,000 to take him across the US-Mexican border and settled in Chelsea.

The workers said they were paid in cash at $9 to $10 an hour and sometimes worked 11-hour days.

Romney never inquired about their status, they said.

Oh, the hypocrisy!  I'm sorry, when did it become Mitt Romney's personal responsibility to certify the immigration status of every employee of every company he hires?  I certainly wouldn't make it my responsibility to snoop into the background of a landscaping company's workers if I needed a walkway installed or some shrubs planted.  There are, you know, laws and agencies that are supposed to control this sort of thing.  I suppose the Globe would have a point here if Romney had been notified of their status and continued to employ them, but that is not their assertion.

Get ready for more of this.  The Globe is going to spend the next 18 months digging for dirt on Mitt Romney, trying to spike his presidential aspirations.  All well and good, except it's certainly not a bipartisan journalistic effort.  After all, the state sports some other politicians, such as  Senators John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, whose backgrounds are a lot more...interesting, shall we say?

11/20/06 0630: Jay Tea realized another Globe slight of hand.  In this story "undocumented workers" were magically transformed into "illegal immigrants."  When you're attacking a Republican I guess it's okay to use the more accurate term.

Not Enough Socialists

Today's Boston Globe carries a column by HBO talkman Bill Maher.  Ordinarily I think Mr. Maher is one of the least funny funny men in the public eye, but today, I've got to tell you, he was screamingly funny.  You see, the problem with America, and with Congress in particular, was identified by Mr. Maher.  There just aren't enough socialists.

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that this election brought new thinking to Washington. It didn't. It brought Democrats, who are often just Republicans slowed down a step by a sense of shame. But they're not revolutionaries, and they're not really diverse.

Oh, Congress looks like America -- we've got blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and whatever else is in Barack Obama. But diversity of thought? There's exactly one socialist, and when it comes to "faith" -- I bet there's not even one who wouldn't profess the greatest of piety. Except Nancy Pelosi, she's a freak. You know -- "San Francisco values." Right, like 66-year-old grandmother of five Nancy Pelosi is some raving, twig-eating Marxist ideologue. If only she were. If we actually had the occasional far left hippie in Congress to balance out all the legion of loonytoons on the far right -- but outside of Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich, there isn't a far left in America. Nancy Pelosi isn't going to try to legalize drugs or socialize hospitals or really tax gasoline or tell the Pentagon to cut its bloated, corrupt budget.

It's been quite a while since I laughed this long and this hard.  My sides hurt.  Bill, you kill me.  Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to socialize hospitals, and can't be a leftist simply because she's a 66 year old grandmother?  She doesn't want to cut the Defense budget?  Other than Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich no other leftists in America?  Only one socialist in Congress is a problem?  And if only there were more openly atheist Congressmen, that would be a start!

And Mr. Maher thinks the solution is a new Constitution (unless he's joking about that also - it's kinda hard to tell).

If we were really looking for a new direction, we'd not just change Congress, we'd have another Constitutional Convention, as Jefferson suggested we do...He himself was saying, "I'm a bright guy, but even I can't foresee the iPod." Or the assault rifle.

[...]

Listen to Jefferson -- he was saying, "We're smart guys, we're not Nostradamus." We deal with things today no founding father could have imagined -- the Internet, global warming. Toilet paper, instead of bark...

How about this: You can own any gun you want, as long as it works on technology developed before 1787. This is what conservatives call "original intent,"

That's just what we need, socialists to save us from modern difficulties like the IPod and toilet paper by rewriting the Constitution.  You know, sometimes the best laughs are the ones you least expect.

Alan Dershowitz On "Politically Correct Harvard"

Long-time Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz writes an op-ed for today's Boston Globe that reveals the "400 pound gorilla in the room."  He reveals that much of the university, other than the Arts and Sciences faculty, still supported Summers.

The Faculty of Arts and Sciences, which forced Summers's resignation by voting a lack of confidence in him last March and threatening to do so again on Feb. 28, is only one component of Harvard University and is hardly representative of widespread attitudes on the campus toward Summers. The graduate faculties, the students, and the alumni generally supported Summers for his many accomplishments.

Further, their lack of support was due to the perception that Summers did not toe the politically correct line, and even abject surrender to the storm that followed was unacceptable to them.

And let there be no mistake about the origin of Summers's problem with that particular faculty: It started as a hard left-center conflict. Summers committed the cardinal sin against the academic hard left: He expressed politically incorrect views regarding gender, race, religion, sexual preference, and the military.

For evidence Professor Dershowitz provides a portion of the text accompanying the "no confidence vote" that was removed.

The original no-confidence motion contained an explanatory note that explicitly referenced ''Mr. Summers' apparently ongoing convictions about the capacities and rights not only of women but also of African-Americans, third-world nations, gay people, and colonized peoples." The note also condemned Summers for his 2002 speech in which he said calls from professors and students for divestment from Israel were ''anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent."

Although the explanatory note was eventually removed from the motion, it was the 400-pound gorilla in the room. Summers was being condemned for expressing views deemed offensive by some of the faculty. I personally disagreed with some of Summers's statements, but that is beside the point in an institution committed to academic freedom and diversity of viewpoints.

...Radical academics do not, of course, burn down buildings, at least not since the 1970s. Instead they introduce motions of no confidence and demand resignations of those who offend their sensibilities (while insisting on complete freedom of speech for those with whom they agree -- free speech for me but not for thee!)

Bravo, Mr. Dershowitz, bravo.  While I'd be far more likely to agree with Mr. Summers statements perhaps than would Mr. Dershowitz , we agree that removal for non-politically correct speech is a black mark on a great institution of higher learning that should be committed to open expression and exploration of all points of view.  That Mr. Summers was forced out for crossing the politically correct slant of a minority of all faculty, even after prostrating himself before that portion of the faculty, does not bode well for the successor to interim and past-president Derek Bok, who will guide Harvard during their search.

Idealogical purity is a poor substitute for academic inquiry.

The Inmates Have Won

In yesterday's 'Furtive Glances' I touched upon the sad tale of Harvard President Lawrence Summers, and the likelihood that he would be replaced.

Harvard is ungovernable, but it is ungovernable because in an institution of higher learning, dedicated to exploring the vast breadth of human knowledge without prejudice, political correctness has made some of that exploration suicidal.  Harvard is Harvard, and if Mr. Summers is forced out they will not lack for candidates to replace him.  But it will be clear to outside observers that the new leader will have to toe a politically correct line.  To get along, you go along.

Well, it's happened, or rather will happen at the conclusion of the current academic year.

Summers, a former treasury secretary under President Clinton, took charge of the university in July 2001, and almost immediately alienated some faculty with his blunt and brusque management style. In January 2005, he sparked an uproar when he speculated about women’s aptitude in science, which led to a vote of no-confidence by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

The same faculty had scheduled a second, unprecedented vote a week from today, after their dean, William C. Kirby, stepped down. Some professors said Summers had forced Kirby out of the position. The episode, the latest in a stormy tenure, was said to have led Harvard’s governing board to consider Summers’ ouster.

See, it doesn't pay to be "blunt and brusque" with the faculty.  Dr. Sanity has some additional thoughts on bullies and appeasement.

Summers abjectly apologized and fell all over himself backpedaling after making some perfectly harmless remarks which happend to mightily offend (to the point of causing a near-swooning episode) some of his female faculty. And for his herculean efforts to appease the eternal victims of academic feminism, Summers reaped only further scorn and rage, expressed in an angry offensive against his administration--not entirely dissimilar to the escalation of the more recent cartoon jihad.

In the history of academia, I don't think anyone has ever come closer to voluntary castration for the cause of radical feminism. And look where it got him.

Ouch.

2/22/06 0630: An interesting post from Scott Johnson at Power Line, referencing Heather Mac Donald's work on the "diversity uber alles" mindset at the institution.

Massachusetts State Government At Work

From the AAOS daily physician newsletter, via the Boston Herald:

A commission set up by the Massachusetts state legislature more than a year ago to examine whether the state should create a medical liability court has never once held a meeting, the Boston Herald reported. The 12-member commission, consisting of state senators, representatives and individuals appointed by the governor, was required to submit a report on its findings by Feb. 1, 2005. A task force created at the same time to look into medical liability issues also never convened.

Why would you bother meeting?  It's not like there's a malpractice insurance problem in the state.  It's not like physicians are leaving in droves.  Oh, wait ... oops, my bad.

State malpractice grade bodes ill: D- may speed doc shortage

The alarming shortage of doctors in the state could spiral into a “crisis” now that Massachusetts has been judged one of the worst states in the nation for malpractice rates, worried physicians say.

"We’re trying to sound the alarms,” Dr. Alan Harvey, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said yesterday. “It’s very much a concern for physicians in Massachusetts and it’s not improving.”

He spoke after the state earned a D-minus for its medical liability environment from the American College of Emergency Physicians.

Massachusetts doctors say medical malpractice insurance rates are through the roof, with obstetricians shelling out $97,000 a year. Medical liability insurance in Massachusetts spiked more than 50 percent from 2001 to 2004.