So, the Saints are apparently the “feel good” story of the NFL playoffs. I get it. They used to suck, their city got washed away, and they’re in the Super Bowl. But, mouthy cheap shot artists kind of take the bloom off the rose.

Saints Defensive Coordinator Gregg Williams, from an interview on 104.5 The Zone in Nashville, going all Buddy Ryan on Peyton Manning (via ESPN’s AFC South Blog).

“This guy’s got a great clock in his head. The big thing is that he throws the ball so early that we’re going to have to do a good job of finding ways to get to him and when we do get to him we’re going to have to make sure he gets a couple ‘remember me’ shots when we get there …”

Then, when asked about his players worrying about incurring 15-yard penalties for hitting Manning, he added this:

“Here’s the deal. When you put too much of that type of worry on a warrior’s mind, he doesn’t play all out. If it happens, it happens. And the only thing you’d like for me to say is that if it happens you hope he doesn’t get back up and play again.”

Yeah, go to hell. If you can’t beat Manning playing by the rules, find another game.

Howard Zinn, the sort of liberal we probably would have heard more of if we truly had a “liberal media,” died yesterday. His Wikipedia entry had a quote about his assessment of Obama’s first year from about two years ago which seemed appropriate in light of the State of the Union last night:

I’ve been searching hard for a highlight. The only thing that comes close is some of Obama’s rhetoric; I don’t see any kind of a highlight in his actions and policies. As far as disappointments, I wasn’t terribly disappointed because I didn’t expect that much. I expected him to be a traditional Democratic president. On foreign policy, that’s hardly any different from a Republican–as nationalist, expansionist, imperial and warlike. So in that sense, there’s no expectation and no disappointment. On domestic policy, traditionally Democratic presidents are more reformist, closer to the labor movement, more willing to pass legislation on behalf of ordinary people–and that’s been true of Obama. But Democratic reforms have also been limited, cautious. Obama’s no exception. On healthcare, for example, he starts out with a compromise, and when you start out with a compromise, you end with a compromise of a compromise, which is where we are now. I thought that in the area of constitutional rights he would be better than he has been. That’s the greatest disappointment, because Obama went to Harvard Law School and is presumably dedicated to constitutional rights. But he becomes president, and he’s not making any significant step away from Bush policies. Sure, he keeps talking about closing Guantánamo, but he still treats the prisoners there as “suspected terrorists.” They have not been tried and have not been found guilty. So when Obama proposes taking people out of Guantánamo and putting them into other prisons, he’s not advancing the cause of constitutional rights very far. And then he’s gone into court arguing for preventive detention, and he’s continued the policy of sending suspects to countries where they very well may be tortured. I think people are dazzled by Obama’s rhetoric, and that people ought to begin to understand that Obama is going to be a mediocre president–which means, in our time, a dangerous president–unless there is some national movement to push him in a better direction.

HCR 28, introduced by Representatives Dodge and Saunders, purports to have Indiana claim its rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and puts the federal government on notice of this claim.

Just as a reminder, the Tenth Amendment says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Tenther Movement is just another installment in the long and checkered history of “states’ rights” in American history. Historically, states’ rights movements haven’t been terribly principled. What they have boiled down to, in effect, is a resentment by those who control state government over a federal government controlled by different factions. For example, conservatives who advanced states rights arguments with respect to abortion and civil rights issues tended not to get real excited when the federal government imposed its views of the drug war on the states. Instead, in that situation, more liberal groups tended to advance the argument that the states should be left alone in that policy area.

This time around, it’s the prospect of liberal domestic spending that seems to be getting the most attention.

At the end of the day, I think the practical answer is that, for better or worse, Hamilton won. Hamilton wanted a strong federal government; Jefferson did not. The Southern States, after some modification I suppose, took up the Jeffersonian view of states rights to protect their peculiar institutions; and the U.S. settled the question, not through speeches and majority decisions, but with blood and iron (as Mr. Bismarck would say).

If you love helping those who suffer and hate taxes, the federal government has a deal for you.

All members of Congress came together late last week with both the House and Senate voting unanimously to approve legislation that will allow eligible taxpayers to claim a deduction on their 2009 income tax returns for contributions to earthquake relief efforts in Haiti, if those contributions are made on or after January 12, 2010 and no later than February 28, 2010.

Ken Kusmer, writing for the Associated Press, has an article about the welfare eligibility process that’s emerging from the failed privatization efforts with ACS/IBM.

The Family and Social Services Administration said it has begun implementing what it’s calling a hybrid welfare intake system, involving caseworkers and some automation, in 10 southwestern Indiana counties. It follows the agency’s aborted bid to turn over highly automated welfare intake to private vendors – a plan designed to replace an outdated, paper-based casework system – that remains in 33 counties.

FSSA said the hybrid rollout began last week with phone calls to vendor-run call centers being rerouted to local welfare offices. It continued Monday with 20 state and contract caseworkers moving from the call centers to the 10 counties.

The article mentions one person (probably representative of a lot of people) who was frustrated at having to start anew under the new system. It also mentions Rep. Riecken’s bill (HB 1003 I think) that would prevent outsourcing eligibility functions.

I give Gov. Daniels and FSSA a lot of crap for implementing a system that denies welfare benefits to otherwise eligible people. I have suggested, and I don’t think I’m wrong, that making people struggle with the process is a way of limiting a program with which the Daniels administration disagrees or at least about which it is not enthusiastic. That said, there is a real need to weed out those who don’t have a real need.

My unscientific sample of collection defendants has a remarkable number of people seeking disability benefits from the federal government. One person I know who works with the poor described disability as the Holy Grail for some of these folks. There are a high number of people, able bodied to my untrained eye, claiming to suffer from a combination of bipolar disease and back problems. I’ll go so far as to say I think a fair number of them are full of shit. So, the screening is necessary – but it shouldn’t be so onerous as to deny benefits to those who are truly in need. Easier said than done, I guess.

SB 25 – Firearms in locked vehicles. Passed 41-9. Prohibits a person from enforcing a rule prohibiting an employee (including a contract employee) from legally possessing a firearm that is locked in the employee’s vehicle while the vehicle is in or on the person’s property. If they’re going to do this, I’d suggest another provision granting immunity to an employer from any harm caused by firearms used on the employer’s property.

SB 31 – Motorcycle handlebar height. Passed 38-10. Provides that motorcycle handlebars may not rise higher than the shoulders of the driver when the driver is seated in the driver’s seat. (Current law provides that the handlebars may not rise more than 15 inches above the driver’s seat.) What does the General Assembly have against ape hangers?

SB 59 – Grandparent and great grandparent visitation. Passed 44-6. This gives rights to great-grandparents and additional rights to grandparents to seek visitation when the domestic situation changes.

One of my favorite bits of medieval history the myth of Prester John. Strange Maps has a great blog post (and, of course, map) about Prester John.

The particulars and the location of Prester John changed over the centuries as need and imagination required, but basically, he was a Christian King of great power and prosperous kingdom located somewhere on the fringes of known geography; usually just beyond the edge of the map. His existence was a tonic to Christians beleaguered by Islam. It’s easy for us to forget today, but back in the 12th century, Christianity was the religion of backward and poor Europe. The great cities of Islam made Europe’s biggest cities look ramshackle. Their educational outlook was, at the time, comparatively enlightened. They’d kept alive knowledge of Aristotle and other Greek thinkers when Europe had mostly forgotten them and produced their own scholars when Europeans were struggling to merely survive. Muslims still had kingdoms in the Iberian peninsula and put pressure on Eastern Europe.

It’s easy to see the appeal of the notion of a great Christian Prince whose kingdom was superior to that of the Muslims and who could potentially be a great ally. At first, Prester John, a descendant of one of the 3 Magi had his kingdom of plenty in the Far East. His kingdom later, and more permanently, took up residence in Africa. And, the legends seem to have played at least some role in the European Age of Exploration. My interest in Prester John is just an aspect of my interest in that period of European history which, in turn, is left over from a boyhood love of adventure stories. I always thought the idea of a totally knew, previously unknown, civilization somewhere over the horizon was pretty cool. Prester John taps into that.

I followed the Massachusetts Senate special election hardly at all. Shortly before the election, I heard the Democrats were going to lose the seat. Today, after that happened, I’m hearing a lot of discussion about “what it means.” Mostly, it seems to mean that the person offering the opinion will project their own preferences as the Will of the People. (“The People” seem to be a lot like God in that respect.)

I can’t tell you what it all means. I hear Coakley was a craptacular candidate. To hear some tell it, the election was a rejection of all Democrats and revulsion at their communo-fascist policies; perhaps even a longing for the good old days of 5 years ago. The corpse of Ronald Reagan is apparently being re-animated to lead the 2010 resurgence. Democrats should be Republicans, just to be safe.

I think there is a lot of inchoate anger out there. People don’t like the way things are, but nobody can quite pin down what’s gone wrong. You just can’t win. If you work hard, out of control lenders will take what you make and, if there is anything left over, some do-gooder will want to take it to give to the poor. The anger is like a static charge that will zap whatever comes close. At the moment, that probably means Democrats. But, unless lawmakers right the ship, it’s going to be whoever is in power at the time — or, if it gets bad enough, a redirection of the anger.

Give folks someone to be mad at, and they won’t bother too much about whether their anger is properly directed. Maybe it’s the gays, maybe it’s the illegal immigrants, maybe it’s the fat cats on Wall Street or the lobbyists in D.C. Elect me and we’ll get ’em! The message is the same even if the “me” and the “them” get shuffled around a bit.

All we want is a reasonable shot at prosperity if we work hard and play by the rules, maybe some friendly people as neighbors and a decent education for our kids. That’s all. Is that too much to ask? Oh, and police protection against people I’m scared of. And firemen ready to come help if my house catches on fire. And the streets should be paved and the stoplights should work. If someone owes me money, I should be able to go to court to enforce my rights. And the bad guys should definitely be locked up. And someone should come pick up my trash. And I’d be awfully mad if bad drainage reduced my property values. And I don’t want to breathe filthy air or drink tainted water. And my food should be safe. And my medicines. And my workplace. Come to think of it, I’m a little nervous about my ability to support myself when I get old and am unable to work. What if I get sick, how am I going to pay for that? And someone should be checking to make sure the doctors I see are properly qualified. I’d prefer not to see people begging on the streets; can we give them enough so they don’t have to beg or at least have someone kick them off the streets where I walk? And I’d rather not pay property taxes, or sales taxes, or income taxes, really. But I’ll be kind of pissed if someone doesn’t pay their fair share, so we should have someone making sure other people pay their taxes. Grrrrrr. . . . . Screw it. GO COLTS!

Mary Beth Schneider, writing for the Indianapolis Star, has an article about a study (pdf) released by John Ketzenberger’s Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute suggesting that Indiana’s urban counties pay out more tax dollars than they get back while the reverse is true for the rural counties.

Of the state’s 92 counties, the 46 considered “metropolitan” paid 82.5 percent of taxes, while getting back 76.7 percent of revenue.

The top 10 donor counties, the study found, were Vanderburgh, Hendricks, Hamilton, Bartholomew, Monroe, Dubois, Marion, Steuben, Clark and Kosciusko.

The top 10 recipients, getting back more dollars than they paid in, were Cass, Sullivan, Parke, Miami, Clay, Union, Crawford, Perry, Jennings and Jefferson.

I guess I’m surprised to hear that half of Indiana’s counties are “metropolitan.”

I only glanced at the report, but it suggests that Steuben County was a “donor” county because of its interstates and proximity to other states, resulting in a high rate of collection of gasoline and cigarette taxes. Kosciusko, Dubois, and Adams counties, the study suggests, are donor counties despite being rural because they have residents who work in nearby metropolitan areas and, consequently, have relatively higher incomes. I only glanced at the report for an explanation of why Cass was such a net recipient county, but didn’t see an explanation if it was there. My guess would be the presence of Logansport State Hospital.

I’ve covered this ground here before, but I’m not sure I got anything like a satisfactory answer. Then again, better thinkers than us have been covering this ground for centuries, I guess. Anyway, I was responding to a post suggesting what a great deal Christianity was because “your sins are forgiven, the slate is wiped clean and your eternal life is guaranteed through nothing you did yourself, even though you don’t deserve it.”

I responded:

See, the way I read it, you start with the premise that the universe was created by God, an omniscient/omnipotent being. With those assumptions, any sins are his fault. He knows everything and has the power to change everything. We cannot make a choice that he did not know about in advance. Therefore, it wasn’t a choice. By definition, He can’t be omniscient if he doesn’t know how we will choose. And, if he is omnipotent, he could have caused it to be otherwise, he simply chose not to. Even more, he has created a hell to torment us for all eternity about these “choices”? That’s insane.

Having his boy killed to “save” us from these sins, keeping in mind he is saving us from the hell he created, doesn’t really make me think any better of him.

If he had limited knowledge and/or limited power, the whole thing might make some logical, ethical sense; but not otherwise.

Choice requires the presence of uncertainty. Omniscience is the absence of uncertainty. The two cannot co-exist.