Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Wednesday's wash

For the playoffs next season, the overtime rule is tweaked:
"The NFL owners voted to change an element in the overtime rule, giving the team that loses the coin toss at the start of overtime to get a possession if the coin-toss winning team scores a field goal with the first possession. The proposal passed 28-4. As it is written, the rules change applies just for the postseason, but the owners also decided to discuss adopting the changes for the regular season at their next meeting, in May in Dallas."

Good change. It just seems to me that both teams should at least have a having a shot (i.e. the ball). They do so in basketball; a 5 minute OT means both teams will have a chance--indeed, several chances--to go on offense. They do so in baseball; in extra innings, both teams get a chance to hit. Now there will be that chance in football, providing one's defense can hold the other guys to less than a TD. And think of the strategy involved: it's OT, your team has the ball first, you drive down other team's, say, 9 yard line...4th down and 2. Go for the field goal? Or the TD? Fascinating strategy call.
But I also agree with Wojo on this rule to the regular season, too. And I predict they will.

Dallas 106, Los Angeles Clippers 96: the Mavs, after their 13-game win streak, have lost 3 of 4, played horribly defensively, and made a lot of turnovers. But last night maybe they got back on a good track, beating the Clippers and playing a better overall game. They're still tied for 2nd place in the Western Conference with Denver, so there's still a chance to get in good position going into the playoffs. Key stats: 37-year-old Jason Kidd scores 26 points. And defensively, the Mavs got LA to miss 17 of 22 shots in the 4th quarter. Why don't they play defense like that more consistently? The eternal question...

Women's NCAA Tournament: Notre Dame 84, Vermont 66: The Irish advance to the sweet 16, for the 8th time since 1997. Let's face it, they were the favorites in this game; ND's a 2 seed, Vermont a 10. But you still have to get it done on the court, and the Irish did, against a hot team that beat Wisconsin in its last game. Key stats: well, mainly it's about Skylar Diggins, who lit up the Catamounts for 31 points; she herself forced 10 Vermont turnovers. Also key was rebounding, always an Irish problem. But last night Notre Dame out-rebounded its opponent, 34-29. Now on to the sweet 16...

Beware of the new health insurance bill:
"The legislation allocates $10 billion to pay for 16,500 IRS agents who will collect and enforce mandatory “premiums.” Does that sound like the private sector at work to you?"

Nope. And as Thomas Sowell today adds:
"Under the headline “Costly Bill Seen as Saving Money,” the San Francisco Chronicle last week began a front-page story with these words: “Many people find it hard to understand how the health care legislation heading for a decisive vote Sunday can cost $940 billion and cut the horrendous federal deficit at the same time.” It’s not hard to understand at all. It is a lie. What makes this particular lie pass muster with many people who might otherwise use their common sense is that the Congressional Budget Office vouched for the consistency of the budget numbers that say you can add millions of people to a government-run system and yet save money."

The CBO said what it said partly because Congress claimed it will cut Medicare by HALF-A-TRILLION DOLLARS...did you get that figure?--every decade. No way that will happen...

I see that some Democrats and liberals are trying to claim already that passage of the health care bill has made it more popular with Americans. Really? Check out this CNN poll on the generic congressional ballot, which came out today:
It's got 48% of respondents planning to vote Republican in November; only 45% plan to vote Democrat. So, let's see, people love this health care bill...which Republicans opposed UNANIMOUSLY...but more of them plan to vote GOP than vote Democratic? Give me a break!
By the way, Quinnipiac has Republicans leading the generic congressional ballot, too.

Meanwhile, the passage of this health care legislation is bringing the so-called "experts" who claim to know what's best for you and are convinced that you don't, out of the woodwork. Did you know that this health care bill has new regulations for restaurants? Read on, and see what an "expert" says about it:
"The health care bill signed into law Tuesday by President Obama is the nation's most sweeping social legislation in four decades. But it also includes some smaller changes that will directly affect consumers. These include taxes on indoor tanning services, requirements for restaurants to post calorie information and changes to flexible spending accounts...There are 540 calories in a Big Mac and 670 calories in a Whopper. Nutritional information will be unavoidable when customers step up to the counter to order. The health care law requires chain restaurants that have more than 20 locations to display calorie information next to the food item on the standard menu...The health care law requires "succinct statement concerning suggested daily caloric intake" that are "posted prominently on the menu and designed to enable the public to understand, in the context of a total daily diet, the significance of the caloric information that is provided on the menu."
Dr. Kelly Brownell, a Yale University psychology professor at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, conducted research that found that consumers choose lower-calorie food when their menus contained caloric information and a statement that said "an average person consumes 2,000 calories a day."

Argh. Come off it, Dr. Brownell! People know very well that big hamburgers have a lot of calories. People aren't stupid; and they don't need you to tell them they're eating high-calorie food. They choose to do it. When will people like yourselves learn to live with this? When will you learn that, in a republic based on freedom and liberty, as our nation is supposed to be, the choice that people make to eat fattening foods or whatever is a choice that "experts" like yourselves need to learn to live with???? When????? Probably never.

"A lot of people don't know what it means to have 600 calories," he said. "They have no context and the legislation requires that anchor statement."