Bowl Outlook (Saturday afternoon update)

Okay, so some things have not gone according to plan. NC State upsets Carolina, Oklahoma is destroying the Cowboys, Clemson lost, and Mississippi lost. Here's where things stand.

• Ole Miss loss to Mississippi State could cost them the Cotton Bowl, if Arkansas upsets LSU.
• North Carolina lost a chance to move up in the bowls due to Clemson’s loss to South Carolina when the Heels got upset on a late field goal block by NC State.
• Oklahoma State’s BCS at-large spot is slipping away at Norman. Now they have to hold off Nebraska for the Cotton Bowl.
• OU’s win (with a Missouri loss) could give the Sooners the Alamo Bowl.
• Six teams playing for two bowl spots: Connecticut, Louisiana-Lafayette, Louisiana-Monroe, Notre Dame, UCLA (all 6-5) and UAB (5-6).

As for the Aggies, OSU's loss could be good news for us. Now that the Cowboys consume one of the Big XII's contractual bowl berths, Texas A&M likely gets bumped down to the Texas Bowl or Independence Bowl.

College Football Outlook (with Bowls!)

First things first – the Aggies.

A win over Texas would have solidified their bowl position higher in the Big XII selection process. However, the Aggies are bowl eligible and will be playing in December, partly because of the poor quality of remaining teams at the bottom of the selection barrel (more on that in a minute).

With Pittsburgh’s upset loss to West Virginia, and their expected loss to Cincinnati, there is room in the BCS for a new at large player. Oklahoma State is going to win the Bedlam Bell for just the sixth time since 1997 (and sixteenth in over a century). That will be enough to squeeze them past Iowa and Penn State for the tenth and final BCS spot. Penn State’s losses to Iowa and Ohio State look better than the Cowboys’ losses to Texas and Houston. But the fact that the Big Ten season ends so early gives Oklahoma State a chance to have the field to themselves.

Now, how does all that relate to the Aggies? The Big XII Conference has agreements with the BCS and seven bowls for a total of eight slots. With Oklahoma State in the BCS, there is now room for nine Big XII teams, and unless Kansas upsets Missouri, there will be exactly nine qualifiers. Four of them will be 6-6 teams: Iowa State, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, and possibly Kansas. The Sun, Insight, Independence, and Texas bowls have the last four selections. And when you get to this point in the process, it’s all about money and traveling fans.

The Sun Bowl in El Paso will be torn between the in-state Aggies and the Sooners, but will ultimately bank on more traveling Sooner fans. The Insight Bowl in Tempe, Arizona will then take the Aggies. Not that we care, but after that, the Independence will invite the Cyclones back, and if Kansas beats Missouri, they will go to Houston for the Texas Bowl.

Next – the Crimson Tide.

Now that the Tide have survived Auburn, they have locked up their spot in the BCS. It will either be in the National Championship Game against Texas (or TCU), or it will be in the Sugar Bowl.

What about LSU, you say?

Outside of Florida, the SEC East is weak, so the best bowl bids are going to go to the West. However, LSU’s loss to Mississippi doesn’t really hurt them. The Tigers had no shot to make the BCS, as the SEC already has two qualifiers. And the only real options were the Capital One Bowl (who selects next after the BCS team(s)) or the Cotton Bowl, who selects the best remaining from the Western Division. LSU lost the head-to-head matchup but will have a much strong positioning in the BCS – possibly qualifying for the at-large pool in the top 14. Unless they lose to Arkansas, they’re stuck in Orlando.

And Wisconsin, for Rachel and her peripheral interest?

The Badgers’ loss to Northwestern in the final Big Ten conference weekend causes them to switch bowls with the Wildcats: Wisconsin is heading to San Antonio now, and Northwestern moves up to the Champs Sports Bowl in Orlando. A win over Hawai’I could switch things back; a loss won’t change their position.

Finally, what about the rest of the bowl eligible teams?

There are 68 bowl slots available and currently only 70 teams have qualified. Six teams’ fates are still undetermined:

• Army (5-6): must beat Navy for an automatic berth in the EagleBank Bowl, but that won’t happen
• Connecticut (5-5): must beat Syracuse or South Florida to qualify, which they will
• Duke (5-6): will lose to Wake Forest
• Hawai’i (5-6): must beat both Navy and Wisconsin, and won’t do that
• Kansas (5-6): will lose to Missouri
• Notre Dame (6-5): will lose to Stanford; even if they don’t, the Irish are too good to go to a lesser known bowl game, and will stay home
• UAB (5-6): must upset Central Florida at home to qualify, which they will

After the contractual bowl selections are made, this is what remains:

Bowls missing teams: EagleBank (from ACC); GMAC (from ACC); Texas (from Big XII); Humanitarian (from MWC); St. Petersburg (from Big East)

Predicted eligible teams remaining: Middle Tennessee State (8-3, @ Louisiana-Monroe); Bowling Green (7-5); Northern Illinois (7-5); Louisiana-Lafayette (6-5, v. Troy); Louisiana-Monroe (6-5, v. Middle Tennessee State); UCLA (6-5, @ USC); Connecticut (5-5, v. Syracuse, v. South Florida); UAB (5-6, v. Central Florida).

Bearing in mind that bowls may not offer a bid to a 6-6 team if there are eligible teams with 7-5 records or better, then Middle Tennessee State, Bowling Green and Northern Illinois will fill three of those five empty slots. UCLA will get a bid if they beat USC, or if no other remaining team gets to seven wins. The most likely fifth slot will go to Connecticut.

As for the BCS, Pittsburgh's loss to West Virginia shakes things up. The conference champions will still be Oregon, Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, Georgia Tech, and Ohio State. TCU will automatically qualify under the non-BCS top 4 rule. Florida loses the SEC title game but stays in the BCS top 10 and is selected. Boise State cannot be ignored, and Oklahoma State steals the last spot with the win over OU.

And now for the rest of the conferences.

Atlantic Coast Conference

The title game is set: Georgia Tech and Clemson will meet in Tampa on December 5, with the Yellow Jackets winning the game and a berth in the BCS Orange Bowl. Clemson will fall to fourth selection, as Virginia Tech and Miami (FL) from the Coastal will get picked first. North Carolina finishes strong and will head to Nashville – but not via Interstate 40, which is closed due to a rock slide. Duke, one of the undetermined teams, will lose to Wake Forest to finish 5-7 and miss out on the bowls. As a result, the ACC will have to give up slots in the EagleBank and GMAC bowls.

Big XII Conference

Yeah, yeah, Texas, blah blah blah.

As mentioned, Oklahoma State will surge into the last at-large slot in the BCS, guaranteeing there won’t be any fighting for bowl slots from the rest of the conference. The South is still stronger, and will send five teams bowling, while the north just has three. Even with a win over Missouri, Kansas could still get left out because of the number of unassigned teams with seven or more wins.

Big East Conference

West Virginia took most of the air out of next week’s Cincinnati-Pittsburgh showdown by upsetting the Panthers. With a win over Rutgers to finish the season, West Virginia will surge into the second spot in the conference and head to the Gator Bowl, dropping the formerly BCS-bound Pitt to the Meineke Car Care Bowl in Charlotte. Connecticut will become eligible and take back one of the conference’s contractual bowls from the at-large pile.

Big Ten Conference

Since their season ended in October, there are no changes to the lineup here. Only Wisconsin’s game at Hawaii remains on December 5, and with a win they could move up a spot.

Conference USA

It’s the last week of the season, and both spots in the conference title game are still up for grabs. East Carolina and Southern Miss play a semifinal match, and the Pirates should come out on top. Meanwhile, Southern Methodist’s loss to Marshall last week took them out of the driver’s seat. They need Houston to lose to Rice – not likely – to make the title game. Houston will finish strong and beat the Pirates for the Liberty Bowl berth. The Eastern Division is muddled, with many complicated tiebreaker scenarios, so bowl assignments here are a crap shoot. Oh, and the Ponies will be spending their December at the New Orleans Bowl.

Mid-American Conference

Dan LeFeveour may be the best and most exciting player you’ve never heard of. He’ll lead Central Michigan over Ohio in the title game to head to the Little Caesar’s Pizza Bowl, a rather undignified name for a conference champion’s bowl. Thanks to the weakness of the ACC, plus their own strong finish, Bowling Green will go bowling for green at the EagleBank Bowl. Northern Illinois gets in, too, setting a record for the MAC with five teams in the postseason.

Mountain West Conference

No movement here, except that Wyoming’s win over Colorado State seals the Cowboys’ invitation to the New Mexico Bowl. The winner of BYU-Utah will go to the Las Vegas Bowl, and the loser to the Poinsettia.

Pacific-10 Conference

UCLA is on a roll and has locked up an at-large bowl berth from the MWC – the Humanitarian Bowl. Meanwhile, with so many games left out west, a lot could still change. Oregon and Oregon State battle for the BCS Rose Bowl, while USC is waiting in the wings to see how high up the selection chart it can rise. Stanford’s meteoric rise was stunted by their loss in the Big Game, but the Cardinal should still go middle-tier bowling.

Southeastern Conference

What’s the biggest surprise in the SEC? How about the Kentucky Wildcats? I see an upset win in the cards for them over Tennessee, giving them second place in the East and a spot in the prestigious New Year’s Day Outback Bowl, their second January 1 appearance since 1952. The rest of the weak East will send teams to major bowls, creating unfortunate mismatches in games that were once interesting. Mississippi’s win over LSU won’t be enough to get them into the Capital One Bowl (reserved for the best remaining team in the West) unless the Tigers lose to Arkansas. But the Cotton Bowl is probably a better prize for the Rebels, along with the exposure that comes from playing at Cowboys Stadium.

Sun Belt

Troy wins the conference and heads to the New Orleans Bowl. Middle Tennessee State’s eight wins in a weak year for the major conferences helps them steal a bid to the GMAC Bowl. If either of the ULs can get to seven wins (without UCLA or Connecticut doing the same), they will also go bowling, probably in St. Petersburg.

Western Athletic Conference

An undefeated season with signature wins over Oregon and Nevada still won’t be enough to get the Broncos of Boise State in the National Championship Game. (Well, not unless Nebraska beats Texas, TCU loses to 1-10 New Mexico, and Cincinnati loses to Pittsburgh.) They’ll head to the Fiesta Bowl again – who doesn’t want to relive that game against Oklahoma, except Eric? Four teams go bowling, including Nevada, whose loss to Boise State, but second place finish in the conference, earns them a trip to the Humanitarian Bowl – in Boise.

Bowl Matchups

NCG	Texas	Alabama
Rose	Ohio State	Oregon
Orange	Georgia Tech	TCU
Fiesta	Oklahoma State	Boise State
Sugar	Florida	Cincinnati
Alamo	Missouri	Wisconsin
Armed Forces	Southern Miss	Air Force
Capital One	Penn State	LSU
Champs Sports	Clemson	Northwestern
Chick-fil-A	Virginia Tech	Auburn
Cotton	Nebraska	Mississippi
Eagle Bank	Marshall	Bowling Green
Emerald	Florida State	Oregon State
Gator	Miami (FL)	West Virginia
GMAC	Ohio	Middle Tennessee St
Hawai'i	East Carolina	Idaho
Holiday	Texas Tech	USC
Humanitarian	UCLA	Nevada
Independence	Iowa State	Georgia
Insight	Texas A&M	Michigan State
International	Rutgers	Temple
Las Vegas	Utah	Stanford
Liberty	Houston	Tennessee
Little Caesar's Pizza	Minnesota	Central Michigan
Meineke Car Care	Boston College	Pittsburgh
Music City	North Carolina	Arkansas
New Mexico	Wyoming	Fresno State
New Orleans	Southern Methodist	Troy
Outback	Iowa	Kentucky
Papajohns.com	South Florida	South Carolina
Poinsettia	Brigham Young	Arizona
St. Petersburg	Connecticut	Central Florida
Sun	Oklahoma	California
Texas	Northern Illinois	Navy

College Football Outlook (with Bowls!)

[I've taken last week's post to its ultimate conclusion, and expanded the projections to all FBS teams and conferences. The primary difficulties were in placing Notre Dame (which has individual bowl agreements), and the projected 7-5 and 6-6 teams (lower-tier bowl placements are dicey).]

Some surprising results last week have upended the bowl projections, particularly in the Big XII. But before we get to that, here is this week's BCS Top 10 projections.

• ACC: Georgia Tech
• Big XII: Texas
• Big East: Cincinnati
• Big Ten: Ohio State
• Pac-10: Oregon
• SEC: Alabama
• At large: Boise State, Florida, TCU, USC

Two BCS Busters make it this year, but still can't break into the championship game. The most likely scenario that gets TCU to Pasadena? An Alabama loss to Auburn, and then a victory over Florida in the SEC title game. A colossal upset loss by Texas in the Big XII title game or to Texas A&M would give us the unthinkable: TCU v. Cincinnati or Boise State for the national title.

And now, it's time for a break down...

Big XII
Colorado is already eliminated from the postseason, but their surprise victory over Texas A&M made the Aggies' road to a bowl game much more difficult. A&M must take care of business against Baylor, and then beat either Oklahoma or Texas to get to seven wins and a reasonable bowl game. Without two more wins, the Aggies will be lucky to be invited to the ninth-pick Texas Bowl. Nebraska's "upset" of Oklahoma moved them into the postseason, and Missouri's loss to Baylor moved them out. And a strong finish by Oklahoma State, combined with some other outcomes, could move the Cowboys into an at-large BCS spot. In the North, Nebraska will beat Kansas State, but the Wildcats will take the Division That Time Forgot when Nebraska loses at Kansas and Colorado.

ACC
Georgia Tech is still the class of the ACC, despite their surprising loss at Miami earlier in the season, and two weak defensive performances the last two weeks against Vanderbilt and Wake Forest. The Yellow Jackets remaining schedule (Wake Forest, Duke, Georgia) is manageable, as is any potential opponent from the Atlantic Division in the ACC Championship Game. (most likely Clemson). The ACC won't fill all nine of its contracted bowl games, which will help out a team from the MAC, and possibly give a game to projected 6-6 Missouri.

Big East
The Big East title - and its usually undeserved BCS bowl bid - is a three-horse race now. West Virginia, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh are all in the BCS top 25, and they will play their round robin during the month of November. West Virginia's loss to fourth-place South Florida puts them at a disadvantage to the other two teams, but it won't matter. The Bearcats will beat West Virginia, Illinois, and Pittsburgh to make the BCS and threaten for the national title. The weak bottom half of the conference will cost the Big East their St. Petersburg Bowl bid, to the benefit of the Sun Belt Conference.

Big Ten
Iowa's quarterback injury has ended yet another promising season for the Hawkeyes. Ohio State will sneak into the Rose Bowl by beating Iowa and Michigan. Penn State's two conference losses will send them to the Outback Bowl. And the middle of the conference is in danger of costing the Big Ten some bowl bids - Michigan State, Purdue, Minnesota, and Michigan all have work to do to get bowl eligible.

Conference USA
It's Houston's to lose. Any of five teams can win the East, but Houston will win out and take the Liberty Bowl berth. Tulsa looked great against the Cougars, but the Hurricane also seems most likely to get left out of the postseason.

Independents
Navy has already accepted a Texas Bowl bid. Notre Dame is so difficult to place - they will not qualify for the BCS, or for their Gator or Sun Bowl arrangements. The best vacancy I have for them now, if the Golden Domers will deign to accept it, is at the Poinsettia Bowl.

Mid-American Conference
Due to weak performances in the major conferences, the MAC could be the beneficiary with as many as four bowl bids. Temple has finally found an appropriate home in the MAC, but they'll lose the title game to Central Michigan. The finishing schedules also favor bids for Bowling Green and Northern Illinois (who last saw action in the 2008 Independence Bowl).

Mountain West
The MWC is strong at the top and can send six teams bowling this season. TCU still has to get through Utah, and will, to bust the BCS and threaten for the national title.

Pacific 10
The Pac-10's full round robin conference schedule leaves lots of doubt as the end of the season nears. Despite the loss to Stanford, Oregon is best positioned for the Rose Bowl - if they can get past Arizona in two weeks. But if the Wildcats beat the Ducks and then lose to USC, the Pac-10 could have five teams finish at 7-2 in the conference. And it's too late at night for me to figure out how to break that tie. Speaking of the Trojans, though, a Stanford-UCLA-Arizona finish points to an at-large BCS berth for the current #9 team.

Southeastern Conference
Provided they both win out, Alabama and Florida will both be in the BCS. The question is in which order. I'm a homer, but I also like Alabama's defense to carry the day agains the Gators. The Outback Bowl's conference arrangements pits the third-best Big Ten team (Penn State) against the best remaining SEC East team - not much of a choice between average Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee. The Vols have the best shot at landing this matchup. Meanwhile, Kentucky will win one and maybe two of their last three games to land in the Independence Bowl.

Sun Belt
Unfortunately, the bowl outlook is the poorest for the weak Sun Belt conference. They spend much of their non-conference seasons as fodder for the SEC, cashing large paychecks for large defeats. Troy will win out and take the automatic bid to the New Orleans Bowl. Thanks to the Big East's inability to fill all their bowl slots, Middle Tennessee State will sneak into the St. Petersburg Bowl. (I keep trying to put an "h" on the end of that.)

Western Athletic Conference
Boise State is tops once again, and has a chance at the BCS title game. Their at-large berth will keep a second Big Ten team out of the BCS. Nevada and Fresno State will go bowling again, and if Idaho can finish strong, the Vandals will shock everyone by going bowling.

Current Bowl Projections
National Championship Game: Texas v. Alabama
Rose Bowl: Oregon v. Ohio State
Orange Bowl: Georgia Tech v. TCU
Fiesta Bowl: USC v. Boise State
Sugar Bowl: Florida v. Cincinnati

Alamo: Oklahoma v. Northwestern
Armed Forces: Southern Miss v. Air Force
Capital One: Iowa v. LSU
Champs Sports: Clemson v. Wisconsin
Chick-fil-A: Miami (FL) v. South Carolina
Cotton: Oklahoma State v. Auburn
Eagle Bank: Central Florida v. Northern Illinois
Emerald: Virginia v. Stanford
Gator: Virginia Tech v. Pittsburgh
GMAC: Missouri v. Temple
Hawai'i: East Carolina v. Idaho
Holiday: Kansas State v. Oregon State
Humanitarian: Wyoming v. Fresno State
Independence: Iowa State v. Kentucky
Insight: Nebraska v. Michigan State
International: South Florida v. Bowling Green
Las Vegas: Utah v. California
Liberty: Houston v. Georgia
Little Caesar's Pizza: Purdue v. Central Michigan
Meineke Car Care: Florida State v. West Virginia
Music City: Boston College v. Mississippi
New Mexico: San Diego State v. Nevada
New Orleans: Southern Methodist v. Troy
Outback: Penn State v. Tennessee
Papajohns.com: Rutgers v. Arkansas
Poinsettia: Notre Dame v. Brigham Young
St. Petersburg: Marshall v. Middle Tennessee State
Sun: Texas Tech v. Arizona
Texas: Texas A&M v. Navy

Big XII Outlook (with Bowls)

Most Big XII teams are four to five games into their conference schedules, and parts of the postseason picture are starting to come into focus. Let's start in the South, where the picture is much tidier (capsules are in order of likelihood).

• Texas (8-0, 5-0 Big XII) controls its own destiny - the only way the Longhorns miss the championship game is by losing two of three to Baylor, Kansas, and Texas A&M. If they win these, plus a detour against non-conference cupcake Central Florida, and they will head to Arlington to roll over a mediocre North Division opponent on their way to the National Championship Game in Pasadena.
• Oklahoma (5-3, 3-1) needs to win out (Nebraska, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State) and have Texas lose two of the following games: Baylor, Kansas, Texas A&M.
• Oklahoma State (6-2, 3-1) needs to win out (Iowa State, Texas Tech, Colorado, Oklahoma) and have Texas lose two of the following games: Baylor, Kansas, Texas A&M.
• Texas A&M (5-3, 2-2) must win out (Colorado, Oklahoma, Baylor, Texas) and have the winner of the Oklahoma-Oklahoma State game lose to another conference opponent; and have Texas lose to Kansas or Baylor.
• Texas Tech (6-3, 3-2) must win out (Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Baylor) and have Texas lose their last three conference games (Baylor, Kansas, Texas A&M).
• Baylor is eliminated.

In the North, things are much murkier. Any of the six teams could still win the division.

• Kansas State (5-4, 3-2) controls its own destiny - simply beat equally mediocre Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska, and they will tie the Huskers with their fourth North Division crown. It will be the only thing they have to celebrate, as any team in this division will be squashed by Texas in the title game.
• Nebraska (5-3, 2-2) controls its own destiny, too. However, the Cornhuskers must beat Oklahoma, Kansas, Kansas State, Colorado, which is a much stiffer schedule than the Wildcats have. Their 9-7 loss to Iowa State was critical; had they won that game, they would be the strong favorites to win the division.
• Missouri (5-3, 1-3) must win out (Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, Kansas) and have Nebraska lose another conference game.
• Iowa State (5-4, 2-3) must win (Oklahoma State, Colorado, Missouri) out and have Kansas lose another conference game, and have Kansas State lose another conference game.
• Kansas (5-3, 1-3) also unbelievably controls its own destiny, but must win out against Kansas State, Nebraska, Texas, Missouri. Not going to happen.
• Colorado (2-6, 1-3) must win out (Texas A&M, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, Nebraska) and have Kansas State lose two of their last three conference games; and have Missouri lose another conference game.

Even more remarkably, an unprecedented six-way tie at 4-4 is possible in the North, but only if Kansas beat Texas, Oklahoma State loses to both Iowa State and Colorado, and a few more improbable outcomes.

(Skip this if you don't like minutiae: Nebraska, Iowa State and Colorado would be eliminated on the second tiebreaker with 2-3 division records. Kansas, Kansas State and Missouri would be tied with 3-2 division records and 1-1 records against each other. Using the same criteria, Iowa State would finish fourth, Colorado fifth, and Nebraska sixth. Under the third tiebreaker, all three teams in contention will have beaten fourth place Iowa State; Kansas is eliminated by their loss to fifth place Colorado; and Kansas State advances to Arlington on the basis of their projected win over Missouri.)

(Other trivia: the Southwest Conference had a five-way tie in 1994 after Texas A&M (6-0-1) was declared ineligible. Baylor, Rice, Texas Tech, Texas, and TCU all shared the title. Texas Tech took the Cotton Bowl berth. Oh, and Texas Tech is the only Big XII team to never have had a losing record since the conference was formed.)

So where does that leave the bowl match-ups? The bowls make their selections in a pre-determined order, and with a few exceptions, the bowls do not have to choose the remaining team with the best record. Here is the order of selection:

1. BCS
2. Cotton
3. Holiday
4. Alamo*
5. Sun*
6. Insight
7. Independence
8. Texas

*-Per an agreement between the Gator, Alamo, and Sun bowls, the Gator Bowl (which usually selects fourth) must choose a Big East team or Notre Dame this year, and the Sun Bowl must choose a Big XII team.

Based on my projections, here is how they will play out.

• BCS - Texas (12-0, 8-0 Big XII) will play in the National Championship Game. No other Big XII team will qualify for an at-large BCS berth.
• Cotton - Oklahoma (9-3, 7-1) will head to Arlington as the second-best team in the league.
• Holiday - By virtue of their season-ending loss to the Sooner, Oklahoma State (9-3, 6-2) will go to San Diego.
• Alamo - given the choice between five 7-5 teams (Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Kansas State, Iowa State, Missouri), the Alamo Bowl will choose the closest team with the biggest fan base - the Aggies (7-5, 4-4).
• Sun - The Sun Bowl will follow suit by taking Texas Tech (7-5, 4-4).
• Insight - North Division champs Kansas State (7-5, 5-3) take a beating from Texas and then head to Tempe.
• Independence - Iowa State (7-5, 4-4) heads back to Shreveport. But if we're not there to see it, does it really happen?
• Texas - Missouri (7-5, 3-5) gets the bid despite the losing conference record, because Houston's only other choice is Nebraska (6-6, 3-5). It's hard to promote a lower-tier bowl game as it is, without having one team enter without a winning record.

So get ready for some indoor football, boys - today it looks like we're spending the holiday in San Antonio.

Remember when Trigger was just a horse?

The health insurance reform bill changes so often and so quickly, even within the same day, that an overwhelming sense of déjà vu has set in. Ideas that we thought were dead and buried are back again, making us wonder - is this a new idea, or haven't we heard this one before. Today, from McClatchy, it is the trigger:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., last week said he'd move ahead with a plan that allows states to opt out within the first year, but that's failed so far to stir the eight to 12 moderates whose votes are crucial.

Gaining support is the idea of a "trigger," where the public option only would be permitted if private insurers fail to lower costs. There are lots of other ideas, however.

Only if they fail to lower costs? Kaiser Family Foundation:



In the decade just ended, premiums increased 131%, and worker contributions increased 128%, compared against a 28% rate of inflation or 38% wage increases over the same time period.

In the United States, we spend more money per person on health care than any other nation in the world. And yet, in measure after measure, we trail most industrial nations and many developing nations in health outcomes. Without government intervention, there is nothing to stop insurance companies from continuing to loot the pockets of American workers. They have shown no willingness or ability to lower premiums year after year over a long period of time. So why should we wait even longer for them to show even more years of incompetence and avarice before a government-mandate intervention can be triggered?

In fact, public insurance companies have billions - yes, billions - of reasons to continue pushing premiums up, paying executive performance bonuses, and make no efforts to cut costs or ease the pressure on working Americans.

Company	Enrollment	Outstanding Shares
UnitedHealth Group	30,300,000	1,162,420,963
WellPoint	35,300,000	484,639,194
Aetna	17,700,000	442,800,000
Humana	8,400,000	169,657,445
CIGNA	11,900,000	272,704,706
TOTAL	103,600,000	2,532,222,308

These billions of shares have to receive dividends - profits on the backs of the diseases, disorders, illnesses, and deaths of other Americans. We don't need a trigger. We don't need to wait for more evidence that these health insurance companies are unwilling and incapable of controlling costs. We can see the problem clear as day. But too many people in power are too weakened by money and corruption to do the right thing.

Exhibit A: Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR). She is facing a tough re-election fight in a rare reddening state. When she is not busy being the pawn of Wal-Mart or Tyson (which is not often), she has the freedom to choose for herself what is best for her re-election chances - er, the people of Arkansas. Here is what those people told her this week - Progressive Change Campaign Committee (MOE 4%):

QUESTION: Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans? (Wording of NYT poll)

	FAVOR	OPPOSE	NOT SURE
ALL	56	37	7

QUESTION: If Blanche Lincoln votes against a public option as part of health care reform, will that make you more likely or less likely to vote for her in the 2010 general election or would it have no real effect on your vote?

	MORE	LESS	NO EFFECT
ALL	16	29	55

QUESTION: If Blanche Lincoln joined Republican senators in filibustering and killing a health care reform bill because it had a public health insurance option, would that make you more likely or less likely to vote for her in the 2010 general election or would it have no real effect on your vote?

	MORE	LESS	NO EFFECT
ALL	15	32	53

A clear majority of Arkansans favor a plan like Medicare for all. And when it comes to the question of whether Lincoln should oppose a public option (-13) or join Republicans in "filibustering"* (-17), the affect on voters is similar enough to fall within the margin of error. Yet in this rare alignment of planets - the right thing to do AND the will of the electorate - Lincoln still seems to be in search of her spine. (So does her colleague Mark Pryor - he's not even up for re-election this time, but is still saying he will be guided by what Lincoln does.)

[* - until "filibusters" look like this again, I'll be using the quotation marks.]

And why is Lincoln still searching for her spine? Because in the 2009-2010 election cycle, only two people in the entire country have taken more from the health industry than Blanche Lincoln's $427,950 - Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senate candidate and former governor Charlie Crist (R-FL).

Blanche - get off the fence and out from in front of the cameras, and do the right thing. Who knows? It might just get you re-elected.

Name that candidate

Courtesy of Pollster.com, CNN and Opinion Research Corporation have a new poll out today regarding the 2012 presidential election, potential candidates, and their approval ratings and strengths. Regarding one politician who is frequently discussed as a candidate in 2012, their polling found the following:

Not a typical politician: 65% Applies, 34% Does not apply
A good role model...: 64 / 35
Care about the needs of people like you: 56 / 43
Is honest and trustworthy: 55 / 43
Shares your values: 49 / 49
Generally agrees with you on issues you care about: 48 / 50
Is a strong and decisive leader: 47 / 51

Have you guessed the candidate yet? Most non-incumbents would envy numbers like this, and it would lead you to believe that the candidate would be in a strong position heading into 2010. But then check out the bottom line:

Qualified to be president: 29 / 71

Have you figured out that the candidate is Sarah Palin? Even among Republicans, the margin is only 52 /47 (4.5% MOE). Her favorability rating is 42 /51 in the same poll. So if she is strong in these traditional measures of candidate values and strengths, what is it about her that makes seven in ten Americans think she is unqualified to be president?

I think the key is in the last strengths question - is she a strong a decisive leader? She receives her lowest marks in this category, and it would be a concern for any candidate to have low numbers on this criteria. But worse for Palin, her decisiveness is sometimes misguided and unintelligible. Two of her biggest decisions involved quitting public positions - one because of a lack of ethics of others, and the second because of a lack of ethics on her own part. In a crisis, will she quit?

All of this, of course, is purely academic. Everyone involved in the Palin follies of 2008 is turning their backs on everyone else and seeking to cash in for themselves. Palin knows, or has been told using very small words, that she could rouse a base of her party a la George Wallace, but she could never win the nomination or the election. Better to strike while the iron is hot, take her place along side Newt Gingrich as post-political party elders, and bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars in public appearance fees.

At least the Miss California pageant could strip Carrie Prejean of her title, limiting her scope and impact. The Grumpy Old Party has stuck us with Sarah.

The Failure of Basic Journalism, Episode I

This is the first installment of many periodic series floating around in my head.

Traditional journalism, for good or ill, is in serious trouble in America. The local newspaper, the Raleigh News and Observer, just laid off several staff members, mainly because of corporate shenanigans of mergers, buyouts, and basic mismanagement. But from the looks of a story in today's N&O, perhaps some other staffers need to be let go for failing basic journalism.

Wednesday's paper features a story headlined "Choking game awareness foundation to host fundraiser". The choking game (which goes by many other names, too) is a form of self-asphyxiation practiced by some teenagers to gain a temporary high. If done incorrectly, it can lead to brain damage and death. As a former teacher and generally aware person, I have heard of the choking game. However, I was surprised to learn that there was a foundation for such things, and that it would have a fundraiser. It was just a weird headline.

So I head inside the article to learn more about it. Kris Marceno was 15 years old, the son of a wealthy Cary family, when he died after playing the choking game. His family created a foundation to his memory and to educate the public about the dangers of this practice. (Note to family: Your website is not as hip as you think it is. It's hard to load and relies too heavily on flash, making it possibly unreadable on some browsers, or so long to load that the viewer loses interest.)

Imagine my shock when the unnamed staff "reporter" wrote the following:

It's estimated as many as 250 to 1,000 teens die in the United States each year playing the choking game, according to the Centers for Disease Control.

250 to 1,000 teens die every year? A 9/11 of choking deaths every three to 11 years? How come I haven't heard more about this before?

The reason is because of a failure of basic journalism.

The website cites an unsubstantiated claim that as many as 250 to 1,000 teens die a year from the choking game, but also admits numbers are hard to prove because many of the deaths are recorded as suicides. While this is likely, the numbers still seem too inflated.

Somewhere along the way, the "reporter" attributed this statistic to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the chief recorder of medical statistics for the United States government. However, a quick 30-second visit to the Google provides the CDC's own information on the choking game.

Because no traditional public health dataset collects mortality data on this practice, CDC used news media reports to estimate the incidence of deaths from the choking game. This report describes the results of that analysis, which identified 82 probable choking-game deaths among youths aged 6--19 years, during 1995--2007.

The CDC's first attempt at estimating the prevalence of death from the choking game came only in February 2008. And while they admit the limitations of their methodology, their analysis debunks the "fact" that went unchallenged by the "reporter". According to the numbers in the article, it wasn't just 82 deaths in the time period studied, but 3,000 to 12,000 deaths. At an average rate of seven deaths per year, the choking game is as fatal as meningitis or heart attack, and less fatal than deaths due to HIV/AIDS, or appendicitis, or influenza, or kidney disease among those aged 5-14 (2005). (This data is not a direct comparison, but it provides a reasonable frame of reference.)

A few closing comments are in order. First, the "reporter" failed to practice basic journalism by doing independent research and verifying the information fed to him or her by the foundation, which is essentially an interest group. While its motives are good, the foundation benefits if people think the choking game is a larger problem than it really is. The "reporter" enables that by not checking the facts.

Second, the "reporter" failed to practice basic common sense. Stop and think about the numbers for a moment. Wouldn't you have noticed if a thousand, or even 250 teens, had died in a year due to this choking game? Shouldn't you have noticed? And if you didn't, shouldn't you have felt skepticism, the chief tool in a reporter's belt? If there were that many deaths every year, would the choking game really need an awareness foundation? While the loss of just one child to any cause of death is a tragedy for that family, this commentary is not attempting to diminish that loss. It is specifically focused on the journalism involved.

Finally, this is a brief six-paragraph article of local interest in a newspaper whose circulation currently ranks 60th in the country. But it is a big deal, because it is endemic of what is happening to journalism at all levels. And because as this staff writer grows in experience and reputation, he or she will continue to make the same errors, either willfully or not, and will continue to mislead readers. Next time, the story might not be about a rare cause of death among teens. It might be about war, national security, massive threats to public health, or something else far more critical.

UPDATE: I posted a brief comment on the story itself, highlighting the failure to check the facts. By the time I finished this post, the N&O had removed my comment. I have contacted the paper (Dan Barking, Senior Editor - Online) and I am waiting for a reply.

UPDATE 2: I received a quick and reasonable reply from the N&) today - my comment had a URL in it, which their policy prohibits. I am glad to set the record straight - and I hope the N&O will do the same.

Gratitude - April 19, 2009

1. I am grateful for the full functional use of my body.
2. I am grateful for breezy, partly cloudy days on the beach.
3. I am grateful for Cici's all-you-can-eat pizza buffet, even if the price has gone up.
4. I am grateful for my Honda Civic Hybrid, and the challenge of maximizing my gas mileage on trips.
5. I am grateful for small children and the simple joys they revel in.
   

Gratitude Diary - April 11, 2009

1. I am grateful for friendly and helpful people like Linda, who saw me at the CVS today in Jackson on my way to the laundromat, and offered to take my laundry home with her to do.
2. I am grateful for good health and decent eyesight, which allow me to focus on my work and on getting Dave healthier.
3. I am grateful for hunger pains that remind me of how fortunate I am to never want for food.
4. I am grateful for Brazilian jazz - that "ba da ba da baaaa" sound that puts me to sleep when I am alone on the road.
5. I am grateful for big stretches that make my muscles tingle and feel alive.
6. I am grateful for "Nessun Dorma".
   

Gratitude Diary - April 10, 2009

1. I am grateful for excellent-tasting food, such as River Hills Club's bacon cheeseburger. The bun is sweet and big and doesn't get soggy; the cheese is thick; and the bacon is crispy.
2. I am grateful for ball kids - young boys and girls. They have a joy and exuberance in their fidgetiness, and they love to be on court.
3. I am grateful for bunny, who loves me with genuine affection and respects my work.
4. I am grateful for deep breaths that help center me, even for just a few seconds.
5. I am grateful for playoff races and chases, and complicated tiebreaker scenarios.
   

The Best (and Worst) James Bond Themes - Part 2

[You can read my introduction to this series, along with the bottom five songs, here.]

25. "Die Another Day", Madonna, Die Another Day
24. "Another Way To Die", Jack White and Alicia Keys, Quantum of Solace
23. "Tomorrow Never Dies", Sheryl Crow, Tomorrow Never Dies
22."For Your Eyes Only", Sheena Easton, For Your Eyes Only
21. "All Time High", Rita Coolidge, Octopussy

20. "The Man with the Golden Gun", Lulu, The Man with the Golden Gun

Lulu was huge in the United Kingdom by 1974, when she was tapped by John Barry to sing the theme song for the next Bond entry.  She had a huge hit in the UK with "Shout", was a co-winner of the Eurovision contest, and had even hit number one in the United States with the title song from "To Sir, with Love" in 1967.  But her weak vocal styling, combined with what even Barry agreed was one his worst jobs providing score and theme in a Bond film, creates a parody of a Bond theme.

The song opens strong, true to the Bond formula - strong brass, aggressive percussion, and then an electric guitar theme that perfectly mirrored the rock music tastes of the time.  And then Lulu starts singing some of the tackiest and most suggestive words to find their way into a Bond theme.  "He has a powerful weapon..."  Her nasal tones and vibrato on long notes make this sound like an American Idol contestant covering the song.  It has a remarkable karaoke quality to it, but part of that feels built in to the song.  I am not sure that a better artist could have made the song less crappy. But it does beat out "We're an all time hiiiigh...."

Grade: C-

19. "The Living Daylights", a-ha, The Living Daylights

Fresh off the success of "A View to a Kill" by Duran Duran, composer John Barry and the producers were looking for an artist that could hit the charts again with "The Living Daylights".  Their first consideration had been Chrissie Hynde and the Pretenders, but they eventually settled on Norwegians a-ha, the first non-English speaking artist to record a Bond theme.  (Can you imagine two more opposite artists from this era?  Then perhaps I shouldn't mention that Alice Cooper claims his song "The Man with the Golden Gun" was considered in place of Lulu.)

By itself, the song is not a bad one.  It combines traditional sound with the emerging electronic instrumentation of the mid-1980s, and allowed a sequence where Morten Harket could plunge into his trademark falsetto made famous by "Take On Me".  But it fails as a Bond theme on several counts.  Sure, the theme mentions the name of the movie, but that's about the only connection the lyrics have to Bond.  They are largely nonsensical, and combined with Harket's occasionally thick accent, they are hard to make out much less comprehend.  And another sign of a weak theme - it doesn't have a reprise in the credits.  That honor goes to the Pretenders and "If There Was a Man".

Then again, perhaps I expected too much.  This was a Dalton film, after all.

Grade: C

18. "Live and Let Die", Paul McCartney and Wings, Live and Let Die

By 1973, John Barry was ready for a respite from Bond films.  So he temporarily turned his duties over to George Martin.  Yes, that George Martin.  It's no surprise that Martin turned to former Beatle Paul McCartney, who was at that time the most successful post-Beatles solo artist, to come up with the theme song.  And given the subject matter, that was no easy task.  Live and Let Die was released at the height of the "blaxploitation" era - in fact, it was selected as the next film specifically to take advantage of that - and it is filled with stereotypes that would be considered inappropriate in a mainstream film today.

I suppose this is one song where I diverge dramatcially from critics and most of the public.  "Live and Let Die" was a big hit in the UK and the US, and received both Grammy and Oscar nominations for best song from a film.  And I grant that the more aggressive parts of the song are appropriate for a Bond film and perfectly suited to adaptation during the movie.  But the bridge - oh, the bridge is awful.  And the changes in tempo are too much for my taste, too.  Further, the film went to great lengths to incorporate the cultures of New Orleans, Harlem, and the Carribean.  This song doesn't seem to reflect any of them to me.

I am a traditionalist when it comes to these songs.  I suppose this was just too dramatic of a change.

Grade: C

17. "Never Say Never Again", Lani Hall, Never Say Never Again

Many hard core Bond fans have mixed but mainly negative feelings about the non-EON remake of Thunderball, titled Never Say Never Again in reference to Sir Sean Connery's vow to permanently reject future James Bond roles.  One bit of anecdotal evidence in this regard - the title sequence of this film is not clipped on YouTube.  In its place are several amateur mashups of how the opening credits and theme should have looked, if this movie weren't such a bastard of the canon.  (Hrm, "bastard of the canon" sounds like a character in Les Miserables. But, as usual, I digress.)

Anyway, about Lani Hall.  She is easily the most obscure artists to give voice to any Bond theme.  Before laying down this track in 1983, she was best known as a bossa nova artist with Sergio Mendes, and as Herb Alpert's wife.  Oh, and she won a Grammy in 1985.  It's hard to write an entire paragraph about Hall.  So I'll spend two sentences on how hard it was instead.

This song lands at number 17 on our survey for one overarching reason - mediocrity.  The vocals are ordinary, and the lyrics are average.  The song has some redeeming aspects - for one, the verses build in melody and volume to a refrain, a common element in Bond themes.  However, the refrain is pretty awful.  Like that kid in your homeroom class whose name you cannot remember because he never did anything noteworthy, this is a forgettable theme in a forgettable film.

Grade: C

16. "We Have All the Time in the World", Louis Armstrong, On Her Majesty's Secret Service

For casual fans, as well as most die-hard Bond aficiandos, a Bond theme requires lyrics.  It's what we have come to expect from the artists.  However, this was not always the case, especially with the early films in the series.  On Her Majesty's Secret Service is one of the films with two entries on our list; because incorporating the title of this movie into the theme song was unwieldy, the film got an instrumental opening theme and a this vocalized end credits theme, by jazz impresario Louis Armstrong.

Because of the legendary status of Armstrong, the fact that this was his last recording, and the subsequent use of the song in advertising campaigns, "We Have All the Time in the World" is generally looked upon with favor by the public.  However, as a Bond theme - an action theme - it clearly fails.  Written by John Barry and Hal David, this is a love theme, focused on James and Tracy, and reprised throughout the film during generally tender moments (not counting Bond's burglary of the law office in Switzerland).

Based solely on Bond theme criteria this song would have landed in the bottom eight.  But this was Barry's fifth Bond film, and by this point he had established a tone - I hesitate to use the word "theme" - that created a thread between films.  This song fits well into that overall tone.  And if that wasn't enough, the composition of the escalating strings line in the background was brilliant, and perfectly suited for reprises during the film itself.  It adds to my enjoyment of this hard-to-love film that it has one of the best scores on a Bond film.

Grade: C+

Leaving Rush Limbaugh

I lost a friend today over Obama's budget, of all things. He displayed a graph on his blog showing the dramatic increased in proposed deficit spending in Obama's next budget. I explained to him that a large part of the reason for this was that Obama eliminated a lot of accounting tricks used by the Bush administration, particularly regarding war spending, to make the deficit look better than it was. He response to me was that I needed to stop "drinking the Koolaid [sic]". And so I explained to him that the reason I was able to stay good friends with some of our mutual friends with whom I disagreed was because we could discuss and disagree and be civil. If he was unserious enough that he had to resort to name-calling, then we could no longer be friends. Sure, that was my choice, but we face serious problems, and now is not the time for people without solutions to get in the way.

Yesterday, on a drive across North Carolina, I listened to Rush Limbaugh's address to CPAC. And I have come to the same conclusion about him.

"[T]he racism, the sexism, the bigotry that we're all charged with, just so you across the United States of America know, and you'll see demonstrated here as the afternoon goes on, doesn't exist on our side. We want everybody to succeed."

Really?

Rush, you are a racist. You have been a racist across four decades of "excellence" in broadcasting. In the 70s, you told a black caller to "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back." In the 90s, you said "Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?" When Carol Moseley-Braun, the first African-American woman in the U.S. Senate, was mentioned on your show, you would play the theme "Movin' On Up" from the television show "The Jeffersons". When a caller told you that black people need to be heard, you replied, "They are 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?" You even claimed that Donovan McNabb, the long-time Philadelphia Eagles quarterback, got too much credit for the success of his team because he was black, and that the media wants to see blacks do well. And you opined, "Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it."

This is not the surface racism that has some people referring to "good niggers" and "bad niggers". And these are not the once-in-a-lifetime racial misquotes of a sincerely open-minded person. These are the philosophical statements of a man who clearly believes to his core that non-whites are less than whites. Someone who believes that whites are superior. Someone so unserious that he will viciously insult millions of people to get laughs from millions of other people.

You are a racist, Rush. There, I said it.

Oh, did I mention that you are a sexist bigot, too? Using a drawn out syllable to call Hillary Clinton a "bitch" while claiming you didn't. Stating that John Edwards' wife "might be attracted to a woman whose mouth did something other than talk." Claiming that Rev. Al Sharpton was concerned about the Duke lacrosse rape case because he was "trying to figure out how he can get involved in the deal down there at Duke where the lacrosse team ... supposedly, you know, raped some, uh, hos." [Racism AND sexism – a two-fer!] Repeatedly referring to women activists as "feminazis" (a quick search of your website shows over 60 uses of the term). And even in this speech, calling CBS's Maggie Rodriguez an "anchorette," and then jokingly apologizing for it.

And now, you want to convene a summit of women because "I want some of these women to start telling me what it is I must do to close the gender gap — or, if not what it is I must do to close the gender gap, what it is I've done that has caused the gender gap." I thought you were a man of principles, Rush. A man who is telling conservatives not to change, that, like a diamond, "conservatism is…forever". Yet you are willing to ask women what you "must do" – differently, of course – to win their support.

"Also, for those of you in the Drive-By Media watching, I have not needed a teleprompter for anything I've said. [Cheers and Applause ] And nor do any of us need a teleprompter, because our beliefs are not the result of calculations and contrivances. Our beliefs are not the result of a deranged psychology. Our beliefs are our core. Our beliefs are our hearts. We don't have to make notes about what we believe. We don't have to write down, oh do I believe it do I believe that we can tell people what we believe off the top of our heads and we can do it with passion and we can do it with clarity, and we can do it persuasively."

Racist, sexist, and now hypocrite.

"We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government."

"We don't want to tell anybody how to live. That's up to you."

Then why are you in my bedroom? Why are you telling me what I can and cannot do with my body, the one gift with which I was endowed by my "Creator"? Why are you telling me I can love anyone I want, as long as you approve of my choice of gender? Am I not a better person, a happier person, a better contributor to society, if I am free to love who I want, and to have his support in my life? If I love someone, and my government tells me, "No, you are not allowed to love him," won't that make me less happy? Won't it make me resentful? And, in Republican terms, won't that make me a less productive input into GDP? If I am unhappy at home, and in my most intimate, personal choices and commitments, how can I be fully happy in anything else I do? How can I reach my potential and be the "best" that you say you want me to be?

You are also a liar, Rush.

"They don't have the right to take money that's not theirs, from the back pockets of producers, and give it to groups like ACORN, which are going to advance the Democrat Party."

First, neither President Obama nor the Congress is trying to give money to ACORN. (Paraphrasing Jerry Seinfeld, "Not that there's anything wrong with" ACORN.) But it is a lie to say the ARRA is going to give them money. ACORN is eligible for grants in the act, just like you are. But it would be just as much a lie for me to state on my blog that "Republicans in Congress allowed a bill through that would take your money and give billions to Rush Limbaugh." Further, it is true that the money is not "theirs". But that is a spurious argument. This is a republic. We chose representatives to make decisions for us. And the majority of those representatives set the tax and revenue policies, and set the priorities for spending. The money is ours, but we have given the authority to spend it to them. If you don't like that, perhaps you should win a few elections and change it.

"In fact, the money he's spending is not ours. He's spending wealth that has yet to be created. And that is not sustainable. It will not work. This has been tried around the world. And every time it's been tried, it's a failed disaster."

Your willful hypocrisy and irony are blinding, Rush. You cannot admit that this is exactly what Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both did for 16 years. They spent our great-grandchildren into a gaping hole. And you are correct that it is not sustainable. It is an aggravating factor in the current economy. Reagan and George H. W. Bush spent us trillions into the hole. Clinton reversed the trend and even passed four consecutive surplus budgets. Bush has done even worse deficit spending than his father, and that doesn't include all the war spending accounting tricks to make the deficit look better than it was. I've seen the charts showing Obama's proposed budget and deficit spending, some estimates up to $2.5 trillion in one fiscal year. I don't know where the final number will end up. But I know that because of the inaction and failures of the last several years, drastic measures are required.

"Spending a nation into generational debt is not an act of compassion."

Then how come it was okay when "compassionate conservative" George W. Bush was doing it? He added trillions to the national debt.

"I have learned how to tweak liberals everywhere. I do it instinctively now. Tweak them in the media. And no reason to be afraid of these people. Why in the world would you be afraid of the deranged? There really is no reason to be afraid of them. And there's no reason to assume they're the minority. And there's no reason to let them set all the premises and all the agendas to which we respond to."

Again, calling names is not a strategy. Referring to my party as the "Democrat Party" seven times because you think it tweaks us is not a solution; it is childishness. But I have a better rebuttal.

"We, ladies and gentlemen, have challenges that are part and parcel of a movement that feels it has just suffered a humiliating defeat when it's not humiliating. This wasn't a landslide victory, 52 to, what, 46. Fifty-eight million people voted against Obama."

Actually, had you wanted to be more negative, you could have said that almost 62 million people voted against Obama. But almost 70 million Americans did choose him. Obama beat McCain by 9,500,000 votes, the largest margin of victory since 1984. Your party lost 14 seats in the Senate and 53 seats in the House in the last two elections – that's nearly one-quarter of your members. So it is not just at the national level that your ideas have lost. They have also lost among the 435 individual constituencies in our country, too. Your platform did not just lose one election – it has lost dozens.

"We don't have the votes in Capitol Hill to stop what's going to happen. What we can do is slow it down, procedure, parliamentary procedures, slow it down and do the best we can to inform the American people of what's really on the horizon."

And now you're making sense. You don't have the votes to win on most party line issues. But you don't propose better ideas, ideas that can win. Instead, you suggest obstruction and delay. Just like insults, neither of these ideas will make someone's life better.

"[Obama] wants people in fear, angst and crisis, fearing the worst each and every day because that clears the decks for President Obama and his pals to come in with the answers, which are abject failures, historically shown and demonstrated."

I'm sorry, Rush, are you sure you didn't mean President Bush? Because after 9/11, Bush had the chance to unite this country and to ask us to sacrifice as Americans for the common good. Instead, he and his people sowed fear, doubt and mistrust among and between us, and used the uncertainty and the confusion to soil the Constitution, the document you claim to love. Do you only love it during Republican eras?

"When I look out at you in this audience, I don't see a Walmart voter. And I don't see a black, and I don't see a woman, and I don't see a Hispanic. I see human beings who happen to be fortunate enough to be the luckiest people on Earth since you are Americans."

Actually, Rush, I think the reason you didn't see a black, or a woman, or a Hispanic, or a Wal-Mart voter in the room is because there weren't any at CPAC! But I digress with my snarkiness…

"So as you leave here, as you leave here optimism, confidence, not guilt, it's not worth it. There's nothing to be guilty about. Don't treat people as children. Respect their intelligence. Realize that there's a way to persuade people. Sometimes the worst way is to get in their face and point a finger. Set up a set of circumstances where the conclusion is obvious. Let them think they came up with the idea themselves. They'll think they're smart that they figured it out. Who cares how you persuade them, the fact they can be persuaded is factually correct, it's possible"

So regarding what position are you trying to persuade me? What ideas do you have for leading our country? You claimed to detail what conservatism is, but you barely scratched the surface. And other than jokes, and pointing fingers, and calling names, you have not suggested any alternatives. Do you want Republicans to be in charge, making the decisions, and driving the agenda again? Of course you do. So suggest something. As long as you have no ideas, as long as all you can do is tear others down, your good wishes for our country will not matter. You will not win elections.

"Joe Biden was mystified how Bobby Jindal got his shift off at 7-Eleven that night to make the speech. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Time out. Suspend speech for explanation. People watching at home. I'm glad this happened. Glad this happened. You think I just made a joke, an ethnic joke about Bobby Jindal, don't you? I didn't. I made a joke about the bigotry of the Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden."

I try to keep myself open-minded. I don't prefer people who are mindless followers of any media personality. Yet I do agree with Keith Olbermann when he calls you a comedian. Rush, you are an intelligent and creative man. But you are unserious. You are a comedian. You may have some worthy ideas, but they get lost in the insults and the racism and the bigotry and the cheap laughs that you yourself display.

It's true that Vice President Biden made a comment about Indian-Americans during the 2008 campaign. And he explained them. The vice president does not have a lengthy dossier underscoring a pervasive bigotry like you do, Rush. But that is not even the worst part of your statement. The worst part is this: will calling the Vice President a bigot save anyone's home? Will it get anyone a job? Will it get health care for those who cannot afford it? Will it educate a child? Will it eradicate cancer? Will making a joke about John Kerry's skin color do any of these things? So, then, if you are truly interested in leading, in finding solutions, in being compassionate, then why are you wasting your first "address to the nation" on such empty punch lines?

It is because you are an unserious comedian.

I laugh at Bill Maher sometimes. He skewers liberals occasionally but saves his heavy ammunition for Republicans (and God). And sometimes he crosses the line into tastelessness. But he is also politically minded. He is aware of current events. He advocates some positions I can support, like the legalization of marijuana. But I no more want Democrats to follow him as a political leader than I think Republicans should be following you now. Put it this way – just like the president and just like you, Rush, Bill Maher is an excellent communicator. However, there is a world of difference between using inspiration, hope and ideas, and using humor as the vehicle to a destination. Comedians like you and Bill and Jon Stewart can inform and entertain people enough to win them over to a cause. But when it comes time to translate that into action, the comedian has nothing left to offer. There is no "there" there. Liberals laugh at Maher, but follow Obama. Conservatives have found both in you. That kind of vacant leadership is dangerous for our country.

I should be thrilled that both conservatives and you yourself want you to be anointed the new leader of the Republican Party. It should only lead to more gains for Democrats and progressives. But I can't be happy about that. That kind of political debate is not healthy for America. I want real ideas on both sides, and I want our people and our leaders to choose from among them. Because I know that Democrats do not have all the answers. And when we are wrong, which is often, there should be other ideas out there. Republicans have good ideas about some things. (I can admit that about my political opponents, Rush. You are incapable of that.) I want an active and vibrant Republican Party to contribute to the constructive debate about how to keep our country strong. A party that follows your comedy shows is not capable of fulfilling that role.

And so I have made a decision. For years, I have listened to you from time to time. I wanted to know what my conservative friends were hearing, and what ideas were in vogue on the other side. I wanted to be educated about you so that I could fairly criticize you when appropriate – and it was nearly always appropriate. But yesterday, you revealed yourself to be the unserious comedian that many have always expected. You are not a philosopher and you are not a political leader. You are a joker with a drive-time radio show, intelligent but boorish, willing to say anything for outrage or for a laugh.

So as I divorced CNN over a year ago, I am leaving you in the dust, too. I am not listening anymore. I am not keeping tabs on you. I am not following your latest outrage on Media Matters. I am not discussing you with friends or opponents. I am not boycotting your advertisers. I am ceasing to care about you politically because you are an unserious comedian. Rather than refusing to listen to you because you are a Republican, I have chosen to ignore you like I ignore Dane Cook – because you are not funny.

The Best (and Worst) James Bond Themes - Part 1

I am a major fan of James Bond movies. My favorite Bond? Easy – Sir Roger Moore. No, really. He played the part with equal amounts of charm and humor, and saved the franchise from extinction. But I digress. Many features of James Bond films have become iconic. The opening gun barrel sequence. (Which opening sequence is the only one in which Bond kneels to take his shot?) Maurice Binder’s excellent credits at or near the start of the movie, usually featuring naked women in silhouette. The gadgets of Q. The Bond girls. (Yes, Patsy Stone really was a Bond girl.) And, of course, the music.

For nearly half a century, the producers of Bond movies have usually sought out the top names in music at the time for the title themes – Paul McCartney, Carly Simon, Duran Duran, Tom Jones, and Dame Shirley Bassey (three times!). And occasionally their choices have generated a collective “huh?” from the audience. (Lani Hall? And, Lulu? Really? I mean, come on.) But between the star power behind the microphone and the writers behind the notes, the combination is usually quite memorable.

Though Bond himself is not anchored to any specific year, Bond themes tend to reflect the musical stylings of the time, and are quite varied. There are some ballads, some pop hits, some heavy metal, and some jazz. As a result, there is no formula for a perfect Bond theme. But a few criteria do apply. The song should be memorable. It should be able to stand alone, but it should also immediately conjure up images of James Bond. It really should mention the title of the film at some point. And, for lack of a better term, it shouldn’t be wussy. A ballad can be okay, as long as it is strong. James Bond is a lover, but he is first a killer.

So, just for the hell of it, here are my top 25 Bond themes.

(Notes: First, there have been 22 “official” James Bond films. Never Say Never Again was a remake of Thunderball and is not considered part of the official EON franchise – that makes 23 songs. From Russia with Love gets two entries in the countdown: one for the theme of the same name, and one for the introduction of John Barry’s “007 Theme”. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service also gets two entries: one for the instrumental theme of the same name, and one for Louis Armstrong’s closing credits song, “We Have All the Time in the World”.)

Let's start at the bottom of the countdown, number 25 - the only Bond theme to get a grade of F.

25. "Die Another Day", Madonna, Die Another Day

By 2002, Madonna had already topped the world of pop music. Every album she released had gone platinum, and she had 24 gold or platinum records. She had "acted" in several movies, though nearly all of them were commercial and critical failures. Highlighting the unevenness of Madonna's career, however, was the Golden Globe she won for Evita in 1996. So even though it was surprising she had not already done a Bond theme, she was already later in her career than just about any other theme artist in the history of the series. While the producers were hoping for another Evita, instead they got a Shanghai Surprise.

Madonna was knee-deep in her dance floor diva revival when EON came calling, and she didn't disappoint. As with the music of her middle-aged gay icon contemporary, Cher, it's hard to tell where Madonna's voice ends and the electronic computer enhancements kick in. Undoubtedly, it is a good Madonna song. But have you ever heard Madonna live - I mean, really, just her voice? She can't sing. So instead, we get this modulated robotic sound.

Madonna's rendition of the theme is like those artists who decide to perform the National Anthem instead of sing it with the spectators. The theme should be about James Bond. Madonna, as with everything, made it about Madonna. It is why she was nominated for both a Golden Globe and a Golden Raspberry for this song. If it weren't for an even more dreadful entry by Britney Spears from Crossroads, Madonna would have won. (As a note, she lost the Golden Globe to U2, but shared the Worst Actress Razzie with Britney Spears. And Madonna only had a cameo in Die Another Day.)

Grade: F

24. "Another Way To Die", Jack White and Alicia Keys, Quantum of Solace

It doesn't help that this song doesn't mention the title of the movie (though it does contain the word "solace"). It doesn't help that the title of the movie was taken from an completely unrelated short story, and therefore in this context is stupid. And it didn't help that this was the worst non-Dalton film in the series, by a long, long way. But the clincher was setting up the first, and hopefully last, duet in Bond theme history.

The music for this song, particularly the opening, are fantastic. It should be right up there in the top 10 of all Bond themes. And it would have been, if Jack and Alicia had never opened their mouths. This combination of sounds is revolting, so bad that it more than negates the great instrumentalism. "Another ringer with a slick trigger finger for Her Majesty"? No, thanks.

Grade: D

23. "Tomorrow Never Dies", Sheryl Crow, Tomorrow Never Dies

John Barry was the guiding hand behind Bond themes and scores from the beginning until Timothy Dalton came along. With a change in Bond, the produces sought a change in music. While Barry recommended his replacement, David Arnold, the lack of Barry's influence saw a generally steady decline in the theme music after 1987. The worst three theme songs date from this era. Without the experience and institutional Bond knowledge of Barry, theme artists with no investment in the franchise began going their own way with the music. (Exhibit A: Madonna) Sheryl Crow was the first artist in the post-Barry era to get lost on the way to the opening credits.

Whereas Madonna was one of the most experienced artists to record a Bond theme, Crow was one of the least. She exploded onto the scene in the mid-1990s, taking home three Grammys for Tuesday Night Music Club. But her work here with Mitchell Froom, husband of Suzanne Vega, has several fatal flaws. The choice of an equivalent 6/8 time gives the song a dolorous quality that is not in sync with the action of the movie. Thus, it did not lend itself to be reprised during the movie, as good Bond themes do. It also was not a good fit for Crow's mezzo voice; during the refrain, it feels like there are notes that she struggles to reach. And the rhythm and repetitiveness of the background piano is unfortunately reminiscent of this.

Grade: D

22."For Your Eyes Only", Sheena Easton, For Your Eyes Only

John Barry refused to return to the United Kingdom in 1981 for tax reasons. So EON Productions called on the man who gave us the music to all the Rocky movies, as well as the theme songs from Dynasty and Falcon Crest, Bill Conti. Needless to say, the result was a piano-heavy ballad that is one of the wussiest songs to ever grace a Bond film. Meanwhile, Scottish singer Sheena Easton had exploded onto the pop scene the year before, and would have been an unlikely choice to sing a traditional Bond theme. And unlikelier still, Easton is the only singer to appear in the opening credits. But the musical and vocal styles paired well with Conti's composition. The result was a very good ballad, but a very poor Bond theme. John Barry would return for the next Bond film, but this hiatus marked the end of his best Bond work.

Grade: C-

21. "All Time High", Rita Coolidge, Octopussy

John Barry came back from his one-film vacation to write the music and theme for the next installment after For Your Eyes Only. But how does a composer honor the Bond tradition of incorporating the movie title into the song when the movie is called Octopussy? John Barry brought in Broadway lyricist Tim Rice to help, and the result was only the second Bond theme to date that failed to mention the title of the film. (The first was Dr. No.) The selection of Rita Coolidge was a mystery, however. Coolidge had had an uneven if uneventful career, mainly known for covers of other artists' hits, as well as for breaking up Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young by leaving one of the singers for another. As with Sheena Easton before her, her voice was well-suited to the ballad that Rice and Barry created. But because it had little connection to the film, it is probably the least memorable Bond theme in the last half century. (As an aside, the balladry that Bond themes experienced in the 1980s seems well-suited to the character that Roger Moore brought to the role.)

Grade: C-