The Truth on the Deficit: The WSJ published a good piece today on what really is going on with the federal deficit, with truth meet perception in a head-on collision. To wit:

...over the past three years the federal deficit has shrunk by 58%. The Congressional Budget Office--not the White House--is estimating that the current year's deficit (for fiscal 2007) will fall to $172 billion.

Now you can cynically say that this is like a store "slashing" already high prices to a level that is merely competitive, but there's more to this story than mere spin:

U.S. federal debt as a share of GDP is falling again (see the top chart nearby). At 37% in 2006 and heading south, the U.S. figure compares to 52% in Germany, 43% in France, and 79% in Japan.

The article correctly notes that debt is one thing, while spending is another. The news here is middling:

From 2001-2005, outlays ballooned by $609 billion, or 33%, and Mr. Bush never did veto a spending bill. By contrast, on current pace his second term outlays will grow by 21%--hardly tightfisted, but a third slower.

Last, and perhaps more surprising to many, including yours truly, is that the % of GDP spent on defense is currently lower than it was under Carter, and well under the peak (in the last 30 years, that is) that Reagan set whilst fighting the indomitable Red Menace:

In fact, Mr. Bush's request would only bring defense outlays to 4.2% of GDP, or about 20% of total federal spending. That compares to 4.7% of GDP even under Jimmy Carter, and 6.2% of GDP in 1986 at the peak of the Reagan defense buildup...[note that under Slick Willie it fell to 3%]

Now mind you, the budget remains unbalanced, and while Bushie projects such balance by 2012, we all know he'll be long gone by then, and such projections (remember the Clinton "surpluses") are largely theatre. Now that the Dems are in charge, however, don't be surprised if he doesn't actually threaten to veto a spending bill -- I won't hold my breath however.

Is it over yet - the requisite Super Bowl XLI post: I don't have the initiative to look up our pre-season picks and predictions, so I'll just assume I completely freakin' dominated and got everything 110% right. I know I picked the Colts to win the championship, and they did, so the rest is meaningless anyway.

But my god, what an awful game. I'm sure Enobarbus didn't watch it (sports are best appreciated through the print medium, eh Eno?) so he was spared the meltdown of Chicago's pathetic offense. Indy's running D was bad, giving up some big gains, but they held when it mattered. Of course, when Grossman is flingin' it around you can pretty much stack the line and let the corners cover two or three receivers apiece.

Manning played ok, but not nearly well enough to deserve the full fellating he got from SteveYoung on ESPN last night (or this semi-fellating from John Clayton). He's got his ring and the legacy is safe, but he simply didn't need to be very good for them to win. If Indy's success this year proves anything it's that smart, safe, conservative football wins in the end. Boring, workmanlike efforts don't make for great highlight reels, but every team will be copying Tony Dungy's strategy next year. I predict an NFL season as enjoyable as a Soviet winter in 2008.

Our only hope is that the Bengals can stay out of jail long enough to lead a revolution. Really, with the turnover in coaches, a bunch of young, unproven QB's, the flame out of any team that takes Terrell Owens and Indy winning the Super Bowl, it won't be pretty. Cincy, New Orleans, Green Bay (Favre will always keep things exciting, till the day he plays with a walker) - they'll be among the few standouts. Oh joy!

Oh, and what was the deal with Prince, anyway? I'm not sure why every year we get another halftime performance from an act at least 10 years past their prime (although McCartney still rocked two years ago). Janet Jackson, The Rolling Stones, Prince. And can I say how much I hate medleys? Who came up with this idea? Seems like a leftover from the 1970's Variety Show era, something the Brady's or the Osmonds would have done every week. And did Prince sell the rights to his own songs, forcing him into lame renditions of Proud Mary and All Along The Watchtower? And the Foo Fighters? Who the hell covers the Foo Fighters?

At least I didn't watch the pre-game opening act. Cirque de Soleil, oh my! I think Roger Goodell is out to ruin my life.

Later.

Ahh-Pologizzzee: [say that in your best Kevin Kline voice from "A Fish Called Wanda"] Anyway, great take by a female Duke alum concerning the apology that the Duke Womens' Lacrosse Team deserves for standing behind the presumed innocent players throughout the rape-oh-but-it-wasn't scandal:

Last spring, one of the only groups that stood up against a tirade of prejudices were the members of the Duke Women’s Lacrosse team, led by their courageous coach, Kerstin Kimel. While the rest of the world was condemning the Men’s Lacrosse team as guilty, Coach Kimel was actively supporting the students and her players' choice to show their support by wearing wristbands with the numbers of the indicted players. Rather than highlight the fortitude and commitment to the truth of these accomplished female athletes, the media rained criticism down in the most sexist and dismissive ways.

She then goes on to quote from various national and regional media personalities who are quite scathing in their pre-determined judgment over not just the accused, but the womens' team for showing solidarity in the face of such whithering criticism.

The post then makes the greater point of how, when dealing with these type of "perfect storm" scandals, rather than focus on the individual, the great free press instead rushes to throw on generic labels; rather than report, they smear with very broad and dirty brushes:

Instead of highlighting the courage of the women’s lacrosse team, the media brought us Rolling Stone’s pop culture critique of Duke’s campus as half “The Devil Wears Prada” and half “Girls Gone Wild.” The transparently stupid article by Janet Reitman furthered the media firestorm that Duke was chock full of “drunk,” “horny” women whose lives consist of studying while on the treadmill and finding hot guys to hook up with. You see, it wasn’t intelligence, intuition, or courage that caused these women to support the men’s lacrosse team. It was, instead, the fact that they were sex crazed, stupid, and ignorant. (Someday, someone will have to explain to me how this qualifies as a “feminist” perspective.) Reitman completely exaggerated the Duke social scene by following several “core four” sorority girls who happen to support the lacrosse players and, therefore, according to Reitman, have subverted their feminist predecessors in order to emulate Britney Spears.

Personally, I still don’t understand how “laxers,” who make up 0.01175% of Duke undergraduates could that big of an influence on the social scene. I think I remember one from my time at Duke and recall far more Duke women jokingly lusting after the assistant men’s basketball coach Quinn Snyder than any lacrosse player. That’s right, everybody, basketball, not lacrosse, is the sport that dominates the social scene on Duke’s campus.

Anyway, read on...it's well worth it.

h/t Volokh.

Down Under: Just a brief ditty on the opening of the 2007 tennis season. Couple of surprises and some things not-so-surprising.

First off, Serena is winning -- not always convincingly, and certainly not without some degree of awkwardness, but she's winning. By all accounts, she's not in tip-top shape, but with all the rust, injuries and distraction over the past 2 years, it's good to see her challenging, and against a cruising Sharapova (who mind you, was thiiis close to losing in the first round), she will need every ounce of effort.

Roddick can't beat Roger. It wasn't even close. Unless Connors can lace-up, I don't think he's ever going to get Andy to "man up" against Roger in the Slams. It's just not pretty and it's unfortunate that we're not going to see a true rivalry in mens' tennis for some time.

Hingis is back. She hung tough against Clijsters, taking her to three sets (Clijsters had 62 (!) unforced errors), and reaffirms that grace can prevail, at least often enough, against power.

Nadal is his usual mixed bag off European soil. Still can't figure out the shorts concept.

I fear Blake just won't turn the corner. He is starting to remind me of a Henman -- a guy who is a gamer, tough, and undeniably talented, but seems to lack the extra gear to win a Slam. Now mind you, I'm not faulting the guy for not beating up on Federer, but just make a few finals at least to show you have the mental fortitude.

Finals predictions: Serena guts one out (pun intended). Federer in 4.

SOTU: Okay, I'm going to get back into the swing of things here. I've had some personal issues to work out, mostly related to having a new job and all, so apologies all around for being completely (well, nearly so) absent for the past two months.

Flyer -- nice comments on Vodkapundit by the way. I figure if Stephen is back, then so am I. And yes, the Supremes have always had to sit on their hand to show how "impartial" they are to the policy points put forth by the Prez that they will end up tearing into little pieces within a few years. Although I'm pretty sure Scalia was biting through his cheeks on the healthcare talk -- or maybe that was just the remains of his panacotta; either way.....

I think others remarked on this: the Prez seemed beaten (and I guess in a way he was). I was ready for him to come out and say: "And as for the War in Iraq -- I was wrong." and then watch Cheney tackle him, whip out his hunting shotgun, declare W unfit to serve, and announce that he was in charge and henceforth habeas corpus is hereby suspended and a curfew is announced -- temporarily of course.

But somehow, Bushie kept it together enough to stay to his utterly un-inspiring talking points. You know, the SOTU has been in a slow decline for the past, oh 50 years, and it's now to the point where I don't see the point. No president would dare ever say that the Union's state is anything but strong -- even when it's barely getting by on broken rims and the tailpipe is dragging. Moreover, the Constitution requires only that the President inform Congress what is shape of things, not introduce NBA players as model citizens -- although I would have paid money to hear Mutombo give the Democratic response. Here's a much more thoughtful review of the devolution of the SOTU.

Here is the short version: "The State of the Union is Kentucky. Once China goes off the dollar, we're all done for. The Military is completely confused, undermanned, and without morale. Social Security will bankrupt whatever is left, but hey, isn't that Baby Einstein something? I get a little confused watching those tapes, but Cheney says his daughter is buying them left and right in anticipation of her giving birth to the Anti-Christ, so there must be something to them. Ethanol = teh awesome. Madame Speaker, you may now drive this Country into the ground. Thank you and God (you know, the good one) bless America."