Impossible Scissors

In my mind, there’s nothing more cathartic than Super Bowl Sunday. It’s ironic that I should feel this way, because I’m generally deterred by overblown spectacle and hype; the Super Bowl epitomizes all of those things. But my fascination with pro football transcends any interest I have in other sports. I think that the storylines and drama of the NFL, which occur both on and off the field, compel me to take interest in whatever football game is playing at the time—even if my beloved Chicago Bears aren’t playing.

Personally, I'm pulling for the Cardinals in this game. It doesn't hurt that my great-grandfather was a fan of the Chicago Cardinals. He claimed that the wrong football team left town fifty years ago. In the years since then, the Bears have put together many dismal seasons during which I might have agreed with him, had not the St. Louis, Phoenix and Arizona incarnations of his team been even more pathetic on the playing field than the hapless Bears. So the Cardinals are my sentimental favorite. It doesn't hurt any that I'm spiting President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Steelers owner Dan Rooney (an early Republican defector to the Obama candidacy) by opposing the Steelers.

For Super Bowl 43, we have the Cardinals playing to win their first championship since they were the Chicago Cardinals in 1947. Coach Ken Whisenhunt is looking for “revenge” against his old team, the Steelers, for passing him over when looking for a new head coach. Kurt Warner is leading a second team into the Super Bowl after every other team had given up on him. Larry Fitzgerald, the Cardinals’ seemingly-unstoppable wide receiver, is playing in the big game while his father watches from the sidelines as an objective sports journalist. The Steelers’ Hines Ward, MVP of Super Bowl 40, expects to play in spite of injury. His team’s quarterback, Ben Roethlissberger, also has a grudge against Ken Whisenhunt for comments he made about Roethlissberger’s motorcycle accident affecting his performance during the 2006 season.

Maybe all of the grudges are fabrications, and the storylines for this game are overwrought. But they add to the spectacle of compelling entertainment. It’s the modern equivalent to the Roman Circus Maximus, where cheering the gladiators and watching the lions feast on the Christians was enough to distract the people from the problems of a corrupt, crumbling empire and a fiddling emperor. I say “bring on the game,” and let our nation enjoy a cathartic moment together.

EDIT: I have been informed by an erudite friend (and probably the only person who regularly reads this blog) that Circus Maximus was primarily the site of chariot races, while the Colusseum and other venues played host to gladiators and lions. In spite of the historical error, the point is still relevent: we Americans need our spectacles and entertainment. Now bring on the Super Bowl!

Recently the radio waves have been filled with advertisements for “Cap and Dividend,” promoting “a new economy” that’s better for our environment. It sounds so wonderful based on the clueless guy who gets all the details from the female narrator about how Cap & Dividend will make his life so much better without any drawbacks. I mean, the repetitive “cha-CHING!” sounds stand as testimony to all the money Americans will make from the carbon cap & trade plan.

Behind the glittering generalities of the radio spot is the cold truth: the only thing new about a cap & trade economy is that environmentalism is the new justification for old, failed policies of income redistribution from a handful of wealthy individuals and corporations. Populist politicians can get behind this because they’re buying the support of a larger constituency comprised of the middle and lower classes. On the surface, it may seem like a good idea that corporations have to buy unused carbon credits from average-Joe Americans. But corporations aren’t producing carbon for carbon’s sake. They produce carbon dioxide because it’s the byproduct of the goods and services Americans require. As long as the need exists, the carbon dioxide will be produced. While a "Cap & Dividend" system might encourage a look at alternative energy, the free market still favors traditional forms of energy as cheaper than the alternatives. The net effect of “cap and dividend” will be an across-the-board increase in the cost of services and consumer goods to compensate for the carbon credits that have to be purchased.

If America was serious about fighting carbon dioxide, maybe it would get serious about promoting the spread of nuclear power as a carbon-free source of energy. But Democrat administrations have opposed nuclear fuel reprocessing since the days of Jimmy Carter; Barack Obama opposes safe storage of spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain. So much for “change we can believe in” on energy policy.

Fiat is acquiring a 35% stake in Chrysler in a cashless transaction. The fact that the nation’s third-biggest automaker is giving away over a third of itself to an Italian firm would probably shock most Americans if they were aware of what was going on. While Fiat isn’t bringing any cash to the table right now (aside from retooling at plants where Chrysler produces small cars,) the Italian automaker’s business plans may be able to contribute to the long-term recovery of Chrysler. Moreover, it puts an ironic twist on Cerberus Capital Management’s acquisition of the company roughly 18 months ago in a bid to rebuild the struggling auto maker before selling it off.

For American automakers, the profit model has relied on high markups on large vehicles like trucks and Jeeps, while smaller automobiles make little or no profit for the manufacturer. Perhaps Fiat’s respected auto models will be able to turn a profit in the US under the Chrysler brand. Conversely, Fiat could find a bigger market for the most respected elements of the Chrysler business (Dodge trucks and Jeeps) in Europe and other markets where Fiat’s sales are strong.

Fiat is putting itself at great risk, banking on the belief that Americans will be drawn to small cars, and that Chrysler can change its business model to make a profit off them. It would be easier for Fiat to build its existing cars and sell them under the Chrysler name, even though this would lead to the shutdown of several Chrysler plants and the layoffs of most employees who worked there. In the near-term, gasoline is at historic lows and the small-car boom hasn't materialized. But this isn't a long term trend, and Fiat's gamble may pay off if the company can wait patiently for a few years.

Today a nation remembers civil rights leader Martin Luther King and his work on behalf of bringing racial equality to a nation with a past of deep-seeded scars. Tomorrow it inaugurates Barack Obama as its 44th president, and its first president of African ancestry.

The inauguration of Barack Obama is a moment that many Americans believed they'd never see. The hope that many citizens placed in the American system is tainted by the pervasive belief that American society is inherently unfair to non-whites, and that they will always be held back in some way from achieving their full potential. Seeing Barack Obama take the oath of office will hopefully serve as a dramtic symbol that the most significant glass ceiling has been shattered. From this moment on, all Americans should feel inspired to pursue their dreams, undeterred by fears of an unjust society.

The value of seeing the presidential inauguration should reinforce the fundamental trait of American government: that revolutions can take place without a shot being fired, and the people out-of-power can pledge their allegiance to the new government. That was Rev. King's message all along, and tomorrow represents the fulfillment of a significant part of his dream.

From the perspective of a person who did not vote for Barack Obama, I hope that the next administration will bring a new civility to Washington, where people can debate ideas based on their merits and not make things personal. I appreciate the efforts the president-elect has made to forge concensus, and I hope that the centrist track he has taken on many of his cabinet selections will guide his time in office. I pray for our new president's success and will support him in any way that ensures America's prosperity.

Bitter Clingers
In his recent Newsweek piece, Daniel Gross argues that George Will and Amity Shlaes "bitterly cling" to the notion that the New Deal didn't work. An ironic choice of words, in light of Barack Obama's speech from last year about people who are "bitter" about their economic condition and "cling" to guns & religion.

But in a bigger sense, I have to ask whether Mr. Gross even bothered reading Ms. Shlaes's book on the New Deal, The Forgotten Man. The book isn't perfect, but it lays out a compelling case that the crash of 1929 became the Great Depression due to Herbert Hoover's tariff & tax policies. The Roosevelt administration wisely repealed the Hawley-Smoot Tariff, but it only compounded the failings of Hoover tax policy. Further, it made the situation worse by continuously experimenting with the monetary policy and by encouraging industry collusion with the National Industrial Recovery Act. The Depression was prolonged, and even led to the depression-within-a-depression of 1937. While the onset of World War II helped to end the Depression, it was also the onset of stability in monetary policy which helped America to recover.

While most Americans are convinced we're in the current economic crisis due to a failure of the government to regulate, there are those (including yours truly) who feel that excessive regulation (i.e., the Community Reinvestment Act) helped to get us here. The voices of economic libertarians should be no less valid now than when the economy was strong.

Casey at the Bat
Bob Woodward tries to cull lessons from the Bush presidency in a recent Washington Post op-ed. While Woodward had unprecedented access to the Bush White House, that doesn't mean all of his conclusions were valid. He uses General George Casey as an authority on how the president didn't understand the situation in Iraq. It should be noted that General Casey was commander of US forces over a span of over 2.5 years in which the situation deteriorated out of control. It should be kept in mind that General Casey, looking to protect his own image and legacy, can't be expected to deliver an account of events devoid of spin. What efforts did General Casey make to keep the president educated about the situation? Without corroborating witnesses, it's tough to judge.

We Are the Champions?
Rep. Edolphus Towns wants college football to adopt a playoff system, ensuring there is only one undisputed champion of college football. Barack Obama once made the same pledge. It's a good idea with which many fans agree. Take the top eight or top twelve (perhaps top sixteen) teams and force a playoff to ensure no ambiguity over the championship. But the government shouldn't be mandating what college football should be doing to crown its king. Due to the money involved in college sports, the Bowl Championship Series has been cemented as a New Years' tradition. There will have to be an argument made to the BCS host sites that a playoff system will net them more money, while still preserving the traditional conference rivalries that have been present during college bowl games.

The US Senate is poised to accept the nomination of Roland Burris to fill the vacant Senate seat of Barack Obama. In doing so, they are legitimizing the waning authority of Illinois's embattled governor, Rod Blagojevich.

It's hard to imagine that Roland Burris actually traded influence, favors or money for the Senate seat. He's an accomplished civil servant with a long history in Illinois politics, and he's certainly qualified to be a Senator. The problem is that his appointment comes from a disgraced governor with zero credibility. Rod Blagojevich has zero friends or allies in the state government. Even the most loyal Democrats have turned their back on him.

The biggest strike against Roland Burris is that he didn't have the good sense to say no to Governor Blago. Perhaps the allure of a Senate seat was too strong, but he shouldn't have affirmed the power of an indicted governor to appoint a Senator. He should have had the good sense to turn the nomination down, and he should have added his voice to the chorus of Blagojevich opponents in Illinois. The taint of Rod Blagojevich and scandal will always loom like a cloud over Roland Burris. If he wanted a Senate seat, he should have waited to petition Lt Governor Pat Quinn once he takes over following the governor's impeachment.

It's impossible to tell if Roland Burris will make for a good Senator, of if he will win election in his own right. But his appointment will likely be the final act of Rod Blagojevich as Illinois governor.