Imagine what Terrell Pryor's enemies are saying if this is what his "friends" are saying:
"From his first pass, (people said) he's really not that good. But I really feel that's kind of hard for a guy like that, you know what I mean? There's only one Tim Tebow in this world and I don't really know what people want from (Pryor)," Posey said. "He's going to get better. He really can't do much worse."
Something just doesn't seem right with Florida:
1 2 3 4 T
ARK (3-2) 0 10 10
FLA (5-0) 0 3 3
Halftime
I have felt that way watching them the past couple of weeks. The defense is solid but there doesn't seem to be that much offense. I know Tebow is hurt but may, just maybe, Harvin was the real catalyst to that offense. Of course, I can say the same thing about Texas.
1 2 3 4 T
ARK (3-2) 0 10 10
FLA (5-0) 0 3 3
Halftime
I have felt that way watching them the past couple of weeks. The defense is solid but there doesn't seem to be that much offense. I know Tebow is hurt but may, just maybe, Harvin was the real catalyst to that offense. Of course, I can say the same thing about Texas.
Pretty ironic that the poster that helped symbolize Obama on the campaign trail was effectively stolen.
As you can imagine I am a big fan of Stephen Harper and think he is doing an admirable job considering his conservatives party only has a minority government. He absolutely is the antithesis to Obama, which really is surprising considering he resides in a much more liberal country. Although, I agree with this fair comparison, it still seems understated that Canada and the US seems to be moving in opposite directions when it comes to government control of the economy and healthcare. I do believe that over the next 30 years Canada will become much more of a major player globally, assuming that Mr. Harper and the conservative party remains entrenched. A great contrast between the two "leaders" (I say leaders of countries, not actual leaders in the case of the US):
I have made this point before and I think it is very important. Quietly, but surely, Canada is moving away from only a single payer system and will begin to allow the offering, albeit limited, of a private option. It doesn't shock me that the MSM has not even mentioned this while they lead the cheers to a US single payer system and evoke Canada as a shinning example of single payer success. If Canada is moving away from it.....
The difference between the two heads of state could not be more palpable, not only in their foreign and domestic policies, but also in the treatment they are accorded by the press. One is a media darling and an absolute disaster in every initiative he has undertaken; the other is often the target of smug ingratitude and denunciation for weathering a major economic crisis and for comporting himself with dignity and honor in the international arena. Harper is condemned as a “control freak” for trying to run a tight ship; Obama is worshiped as a “sort of god” for unleashing a perfect storm. Like any politician, the Canadian prime minister has not always made the most astute decisions and has plainly committed tactical errors from time to time. What else is new? But tactical errors are by no means equivalent to strategic blunders — another salient distinction between the two leaders.
I have made this point before and I think it is very important. Quietly, but surely, Canada is moving away from only a single payer system and will begin to allow the offering, albeit limited, of a private option. It doesn't shock me that the MSM has not even mentioned this while they lead the cheers to a US single payer system and evoke Canada as a shinning example of single payer success. If Canada is moving away from it.....
Hostile Pickoff:
I made up 2 games on Mr. Mandel and blew the coin out of the water last week. Let's see what this week has in store for me and Stewie:
Mandel: Rutgers, Texas, VT, USC, Alabama, Florida, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Arizona, Missouri.
Hostile: Rutgers, Texas, VT, USC, Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Nebraska, Arizona, Oklahoma State.
Mandel: Rutgers, Texas, VT, USC, Alabama, Florida, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Arizona, Missouri.
Hostile: Rutgers, Texas, VT, USC, Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Nebraska, Arizona, Oklahoma State.
Interesting bit from Volokh. I see most of my private market friends scratching their heads wondering how this can even be debated. My sense, albeit probably very non-PC, is that non-merit based pay is one of, if not THE, primary driver as to why many people chose academia over the private sector. Obviously, I believe almost all compensation should be allocated through a meritocracy and finding metrics to define performance really shouldn't be that hard. From the comments:
"As someone who has worked exclusively in the private sector, I find some of the arguments raised here astonishing. We have good enough data to determine whether to grant someone lifetime tenure but not enough data to do an annual performance evaluation? Seriously?
Unless we’re dealing with commissioned salespeople or performance-based compensation for hedge fund managers, there are almost never totally non-subjective criteria available to determine annual performance. How do you evaluate someone who works on multi-year projects? By judging them against their peers and against their objectives. There is no reason academia should be different.
The idea that academia is somehow so different from ordinary pursuits that merit-based compensation schemes simply can’t work demands a high burden of proof. Plus, if it were true, then academic output should be totally uncoupled from wages–which suggests one place to start saving money. If we can’t identify great output in order to assign monetary rewards, then cutting those monetary rewards shouldn’t affect the great academic output."
If I am a college AD I go after Gruden too. He seems like a perfect fit for a program. He has credibility, he is somewhat younger and still cool, and you just know he will be a recruiting machine.
Too many people have their professional identities wrapped up into this for it to change anytime soon. From NRO courtesy of Glenn Reynolds. A very good question:
"Why do Sharpton and Jackson have careers? Why aren't they shown the door for serial racism and dishonesty? Why does anyone give a damn what they say? Why does the press treat them like they matter when they're a walking, talking parodies?"
I am no real fan of Rush, but apparently there is only concern among NFL ownership and players if you do not support the current administration.
This couldn't possibly drip with more irony. First, I am pretty sure many of his constituents would say the same thing about him. Second, fairly appropriate that the thievery came at UNION square, especially considering his "alleged" ability to "redistribute" to said unions. Karma.
The latest college footballSagarin ratings are posted. Some interesting tidbits:
1. The Pac 10 is rated the best conference in the country and at the very least is on par with the SEC. Not really too surprising. The conference always grades out well with Sagarin simply because the SOS Pac10 teams play are meaningfully tougher than any other conference. 7 teams in the conference have a top 16 SOS versus 2 from the SEC. There is no doubt this is helped by the additional in conference game played by the Pac 10 versus anyone else and the fact that this necessitates less home games as well, no matter how debilitating that may be to them in the national championship picture (and it is a severe penalty).
2. The Big 10 is the worst BCS conference, even more so than the Big East. Anyone who has had the pleasure of watching the 11am CT Big 10 game because they need a football fix knows how painful it is watching this type of football.
3. The Big 12 is 0-10 vs Top 30 Sagarin teams. That they have only played 10 games vs the top 30 (Pac 10 has played 21 with 2 less teams) is embarrassment enough, but 5 teams have a SOS greater than 100 (Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Texas A&M). There are 119 Div-1A teams. Baylor, Iowa State, and Kansas State all have SOS's ranked 87+.
4. Which leads us to this question: Why is Texas even involved in the National Championship debate right now? They have the 100th toughest SOS to date in D-1A football and they have yet to even PLAY, let alone beat, a team in the top 30.
All of this statistical analysis begs for a playoff. It is obvious that there is no continuity in SOS and it is equally clear that voters all but ignore the inherent schedule inequities between conferences (BCS opponents, home games, conference games). It also proves that the Pac 10 conference needs to abolish their 9th in conference game as it does nothing but hurt the perception of the conference in the biased polls.
1. The Pac 10 is rated the best conference in the country and at the very least is on par with the SEC. Not really too surprising. The conference always grades out well with Sagarin simply because the SOS Pac10 teams play are meaningfully tougher than any other conference. 7 teams in the conference have a top 16 SOS versus 2 from the SEC. There is no doubt this is helped by the additional in conference game played by the Pac 10 versus anyone else and the fact that this necessitates less home games as well, no matter how debilitating that may be to them in the national championship picture (and it is a severe penalty).
2. The Big 10 is the worst BCS conference, even more so than the Big East. Anyone who has had the pleasure of watching the 11am CT Big 10 game because they need a football fix knows how painful it is watching this type of football.
3. The Big 12 is 0-10 vs Top 30 Sagarin teams. That they have only played 10 games vs the top 30 (Pac 10 has played 21 with 2 less teams) is embarrassment enough, but 5 teams have a SOS greater than 100 (Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Texas A&M). There are 119 Div-1A teams. Baylor, Iowa State, and Kansas State all have SOS's ranked 87+.
4. Which leads us to this question: Why is Texas even involved in the National Championship debate right now? They have the 100th toughest SOS to date in D-1A football and they have yet to even PLAY, let alone beat, a team in the top 30.
All of this statistical analysis begs for a playoff. It is obvious that there is no continuity in SOS and it is equally clear that voters all but ignore the inherent schedule inequities between conferences (BCS opponents, home games, conference games). It also proves that the Pac 10 conference needs to abolish their 9th in conference game as it does nothing but hurt the perception of the conference in the biased polls.
Move along nothing to see here. I am not sure how this is a surprise to anyone, isn't this straight out of the Chicago municipal playbook?
If we remember 2 weeks ago we heard Gary Danielson stumping for a certain SEC QB as an NFL QB vs those of his Big 12 comps. I present you Jevan Snead's line, your top SEC QB vs Alabama:
C/ATT YDS AVG TD INT
11/35 140 4.0 0 4
Don't think I am being disingenuous and cherry picking a poor week either Gary. PRIOR to this weekend this future NFL talent was ranked 88th in the country in passing offense. Below Jordan La Secla of SJSU and Trey Revell of Louisiana Monroe. Probably will be sub 100 now. You pay top dollar for that don't you Gary?
C/ATT YDS AVG TD INT
11/35 140 4.0 0 4
Don't think I am being disingenuous and cherry picking a poor week either Gary. PRIOR to this weekend this future NFL talent was ranked 88th in the country in passing offense. Below Jordan La Secla of SJSU and Trey Revell of Louisiana Monroe. Probably will be sub 100 now. You pay top dollar for that don't you Gary?
Help Obama win the Heisman. Seriously, the winner of this gets 1 Heisman vote and the fine people at the Washington Examiner have started the write-in campaign.
Hostile Pickoff:
Well, it wasn't a good first week for Hostile picks. I called Stewie out and then crapped the bed at 3-7. Yes, straight up. I could have flipped a coin (probably a loonie) and done a better job. So, on to this weeks picks 3 games back of Mr. Mandel:
Stewart: Florida, Alabama, Ohio State, Iowa, Auburn, VT, FSU, Pitt, Stanford, UCLA.
Hostile: Florida, Alabama, Ohio State, Iowa, Auburn, VT, FSU, Pitt, Oregon State, Oregon.
Coin: LSU, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Arkansas, BC, FSU, UConn, Stanford, UCLA.
Stewart: Florida, Alabama, Ohio State, Iowa, Auburn, VT, FSU, Pitt, Stanford, UCLA.
Hostile: Florida, Alabama, Ohio State, Iowa, Auburn, VT, FSU, Pitt, Oregon State, Oregon.
Coin: LSU, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Arkansas, BC, FSU, UConn, Stanford, UCLA.
I am pretty sure that when prior winners include Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and Yasser Arafat that this award had jumped the shark. If it hadn't already it sure has now. Must be nice to sail through life with no discernible accomplishments and all the awards.
Opening weekend brought to you by Carpe Diem. From the comments:
"Only a capitalist system could produce overweight communists."So true.
From Victor Davis Hanson at pajamas media. It sure would be nice to see a candidate be "allowed" to avoid (or slightly diminish the roll of) the normal social arguments (gay marriage, abortion, etc) in favor of the current higher level matters that will effectively determine if the US still is the land of opportunity. I would assume this is pretty close to the manifesto, if you will, of what a successful candidate (non-incumbent) should be stumping in 2011-2012.
We Should Vote for Anyone . . .
Who offers a coherent systematic agenda of reform. What do most want? Not necessarily a Republican or Democrat, or at this 11th hour to be mired in messy issues like gay marriage (I’m opposed to it), but rather fundamental matters of finance, investment, and defense. Here are ten random suggestions; dozens more could be adduced.
1) Fiscal sanity that leads to federal spending freezes and a balanced budget that in turn soon allows a paying down of the debt.
2) An oil/nuclear/coal/natural gas rapid development effort (again, to exploit especially new fields in Alaska, California, the Gulf, and North Dakota) to tide us over until alternate energy and new conservation lessen dependence. The alternative is to dream on about “green jobs” while we go broke trying to pay for scarcer imported oil, and lose our autonomy in the next price hike or Mideast crisis, even as we suffer amoral rants from oil-rich unhinged thugs like Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Gaddafi, and Putin.
3) A new national consensus on security to decide that when and if we go to war, to see the effort through, on the principle that whatever the mistakes we commit in battle are far outweighed by the cost of defeat.
4) A bad/worse choice gut check reform on entitlements, especially concerning those unsustainable like Social Security and Medicare, that calibrates payouts in terms of incoming capital—whether by raising age eligibilities or curbing automatic cost of living hikes.
5) Clear, demarcated, and enforced national borders, and an end to illegal immigration through greater enforcement, employer sanction, border fortification, and a change in national attitudes about unlawful entry.
6) Zero tolerance on government corruption. There is no reason why someone like a Charles Rangel is still the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.
7) Tort reform, including limits on personal injury settlements and loser-pays law suit reform.
8) A renewed commitment to national and regional missile defense, on the expectation that the next two decades are going to be terribly dangerous, as lunatic regimes may well threaten to hold an American city or ally as nuclear hostage.
9) Federal investment in hard infrastructure projects, not redistributive entitlements or Murtha-like earmarks, such as freeways, dams, water projects, electrical grids, ports, rail, etc., with regional needs adjudicated by national bipartisan boards.
10) A move to lower taxes, preferably by alternatives to the present income tax system, whether by a consumption tax or flat taxes, calibrated to commensurate spending cuts.
Hostile Pickoff:
The Hostile Take goes up against Stewart Mandel of CNNSI.com. I had to start this one when I saw he has gone 20-20 to date picking games. Given, he isn't picking Charleston Southern vs Florida, but this is STRAIGHT UP. No spread. That's right, the CNNSI.com "expert" is at .500. Let's see if I can beat him:
Stewart: Miami, Cal, LSU, Tennessee, Minnesota, FSU, Stanford, Navy, Arkansas, Michigan State.
Hostile Take: Oklahoma, USC, Georgia, Auburn, Minnesota, FSU, UCLA, Navy, Texas A&M, Michigan.
Hostile Take different picks are in bold. Looks like one of us will take a commanding lead this week.
Stewart: Miami, Cal, LSU, Tennessee, Minnesota, FSU, Stanford, Navy, Arkansas, Michigan State.
Hostile Take: Oklahoma, USC, Georgia, Auburn, Minnesota, FSU, UCLA, Navy, Texas A&M, Michigan.
Hostile Take different picks are in bold. Looks like one of us will take a commanding lead this week.
If you were cynical, you may think those that drafted and support this bill may not want you to be able to understand what is in the actual bill by design.
Final 2016 Olympic Votes:
First round: Madrid 28 votes; Rio de Janeiro 26; Tokyo 22; Chicago 18 (Chicago eliminated).Almost made it into the Second Round of votes. I suppose he should be used to failing by now though. Should soften the blow. I have no idea why any President, in the the throws of being (or may have already been) completely marginalized would run the risk of this embarrassment.I think the message they sent, especially with coming last, is that you can't just show up 2-3 days before a vote and expect to be taken as sincere. Might work with your voting base in the US.....
Second round: Rio 46; Madrid 29; Tokyo 20 (Tokyo eliminated)
Final round: Rio 66; Madrid 32 (Rio to host 2016 Games)
Can't wait until this exceeds 50%. I am with Glenn Reynolds on this, if you don't pay income taxes, you shouldn't be able to vote. Period. Just think of all the personal responsibility and accountability that exists when someone doesn't have property rights. Now think about the majority of this country as "renters". It is unbelievable to me that someone with no skin in the game can have the ability to control capital allocation decisions. Especially, when you can just "buy" votes with entitlement programs that are paid by the productive.
What to do? Easy. Make a minimum income tax payment necessary to register as a voter. I don't know what this number is but I am sure you can scale it with income levels. There needs to be an active decision for everyone between the personal fiscal stability of not paying taxes (subsidized by others) and actively participating in the investment for growth of this country (providing revenues).
I would love to see the breakdown of registered Democrats who are included in this 47% vs that of registered Republicans and Independents.
What to do? Easy. Make a minimum income tax payment necessary to register as a voter. I don't know what this number is but I am sure you can scale it with income levels. There needs to be an active decision for everyone between the personal fiscal stability of not paying taxes (subsidized by others) and actively participating in the investment for growth of this country (providing revenues).
I would love to see the breakdown of registered Democrats who are included in this 47% vs that of registered Republicans and Independents.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
