I'm still mired in a slump, going 6-8 last week (though my 10 unit and 5 unit picks came through, giving me a nice profit for the week.) For the year, I am 55-60. Here are this week's picks:

Syracuse (+6.5) over Cinn, Purdue (+17) over the Illini, Pitt (-9.5) over Louisville, Mich St. (+6) over Iowa, Northwestern (-4) over Indiana, Tennessee (+18) over South Carolina, Auburn (-7) over Ole Miss, Nebraska (-6) over Missouri and Michigan (-3) over Penn State.

Best bets - Georgia (pick) over Florida, Oregon (-7) over USC. Oregon especially is a stone cold lock. Bet the mortgage money (kidding.)

Go Gators!

This is an Open Thread.

Denver passed a metropolitan milestone last week with the opening of its first Four Seasons hotel. It took a few years to build, as it was done from the ground up. The first 17 floors are the hotel and the 28 floors above that are very pricey condos, ranging from $895,000 to $7.5 million.

Four Seasons are probably my favorite hotels anywhere, and I've been fortunate enough to stay in more than my fair share around the world. (The Four Seasons on 57th St in New York is one of my all time favorites. Incredible beds, and the best bathtubs ever, that fill in 60 seconds.)

So what's Denver's Four Seasons like? Does it compare to those in fancier, more sophisticated or tropical places? I spent five hours there last night, celebrating a friend's birthday with a group of friends. I was tempted to spend the night, since they are offering an introductory special rate of $180 a night until January 31, but I didn't need to. I observed enough to know the hotel is a winner and a great addition to Denver. [More...]

The news is filled with a terror scare today from two packages with explosives headed to synagogues in the U.S from Yemen. President Obama says it sounds like al Qaida Arab Peninsula. (AQAP.) The Guardian reports cleric Anwar al-Awlaki may be behind it.

I'm just getting to the news so I don't have any thoughts on it yet. Here's a thread to discuss it.

Via Balloon Juice, a Jonah Goldberg Op-Ed published in the Chicago Tribune:

I'd like to ask a simple question: Why isn't Julian Assange dead? [. . .] Why wasn't Assange garroted in his hotel room years ago?

It's a serious question.

It's not a serious question of course. And Goldberg is not a serious person. But for all the fainting couches the "progressive elite" pundits fell on regarding Markos' book American Taliban, it is remarkable that this column was published by a major newspaper in the United States.

Speaking for me only

Via Atrios, Dean Baker on Applebees' David Brooks:

[Brooks:]"the public's real anxiety is about values, not economics: the gnawing sense that Americans have become debt-addicted and self-indulgent."

This is really priceless. There are more than 25 million people unemployed, underemployed or who have given up looking for work altogether, but they are not concerned about economics. They are worried about values.

Sadly, this attitude is not limited to conservatives like Brooks. Too many "elite" progressive pundits also have this world view. They argue that since President Obama shares "progressive values" (set aside the question if that is actually true), progressives are crazy for not being enthused about Obama and the Dems. In the world of elites, the little people should be happy when THEY are happy. Life does not work that way.

Speaking for me only

After 58 hours of deliberation, the jury in the trial of Howard K. Stern, boyfriend/manager of Anna Nicole Smith, acquitted him on 7 of the 9 counts he was facing, most of which charged him with providing drugs to "an addict."

He was convicted of two counts, for using a false name on a prescription and conspiring to obtain controlled substances by fraud. (His name instead of Anna's were on some of the prescriptions.)

Bottom line: The jury did not find anyone prescribed or delivered drugs to "an addict."

"The whole case here was based on the idea that Anna was some drug-seeking, drug-crazed addict ... for that part of the people's case, Howard was acquitted across the board," said Stern's attorney, Steve Sadow, who emphasized that his client was convicted only of using false names to obtain medication, which he contended was for Smith's privacy.

[More...]

FTR, this story is irresponsible and sexist. It is also boring and pointless. It is another example of the acceptance of sexism and misogyny in our culture. On the specifics, it is unimportant in that the the candidate smeared is not viable. On the larger issue, it is reprehensible.

This is an Open Thread.

Will Republican control of th House (and maybe the Senate) lead to catastrophe? Paul Krugman says yes:

[The] era of partial cooperation in the 1990s came only after Republicans had tried all-out confrontation, actually shutting down the federal government in an effort to force President Bill Clinton to give in to their demands for big cuts in Medicare. [. . . T]he lesson current Republicans seem to have drawn from 1995 isn’t that they were too confrontational, it’s that they weren’t confrontational enough.

Will President Obama show the same resolve? It's an open question I think. This is crucial for, as Krugman points out, the policy challenges, especially on the economy, are much more daunting now:

As a Centrist, it disturbs me that right wing organizations like The Third Way are trying to misappropriate my label. In a memo to Congress (why does Third Way write memos to Congress? To be able to leak it to The New York Times), The Third Way writes:

Both politically and substantively, liberals need moderates. By rejecting the big-tent coalition that brought them power in the first place, the only things Democrats will accomplish are permanent minority status and the frustration of their legislative priorities. Here are three reasons liberals need moderates:

1. Liberal members need the votes of moderate colleagues to make legislative progress.
2. Liberal members need moderate voters to win and keep their seats.
3. Liberals need moderates — from both parties — to forge good policy.

The first two "reasons" are about labels and ridiculous. "Moderate" is a meaningless term (Pssst, so is my preferred term "centrist.") Here is an idea - how about we start calling progressives moderates. Then we'll win! And in fact, that is precisely what I have argued for for years:

It's 3rd and long for the Democrats and some are already planning the 4th down play, punt:

With the enemy at the gates, and facing heavy casualties, Democrats in Congress are preparing to do what any beleaguered army does: head for the hills and leave booby-traps behind. The bigger the margin Republicans pile up next Tuesday, the less likely it is that the Democrats will be able to - or want to - do much when Congress reconvenes for a lame-duck session on November 15.

[. . .] Come January, the new Tea Party-infused GOP then would have to quickly confront the real-world consequences of its tax-cutting, budget-cutting, debt-reducing, anti-government rhetoric. "Some of our liberals are arguing that we have to do what we can in the lame-duck if it's going to be our last chance, but that is unrealistic if the numbers next week are bad," a top Democratic aide told me. "If we lose big, we'll punt. We'll have to."

Sounds like a Steny Hoyer aide to me. And I think he's right. Nothing worth doing will come out of the lame duck Congress and anything good that is done will redound to the credit of a GOP Congress. I think a mostly do nothing lame duck session (other than extending unemployment benefits) sounds like the right approach. Of course they can't say that publically. And I think a lot of hearings on the foreclosure crisis would be smart too. But no legislation, other than extending unemployment benefits.

Speaking for me only

Steve Benen and Jed Lewison highlight this comment from John Boehner:

"This is not a time for compromise, and I can tell you that we will not compromise on our principles," Boehner said during an appearance on conservative Sean Hannity's radio show.

Their Broderesque reaction: Benen - "I know I keep harping on this, but I think it matters. One of the angles I emphasized yesterday related to the perception that the American mainstream has a visceral dislike for this kind GOP rhetoric. [. . .] We'll see how that turns out for them." Lewison - "For the next two years, the only thing these guys want is paralysis. And that's exactly what they are promising to deliver."

Like David Broder, they seem to believe that "compromise" is what the electorate demands. If that were so, then Republicans would get wiped out in November. Instead they are headed to a historic victory. Like Broder, Benen and Lewison are seemingly unaware of reality regarding the public's attitude regarding "compromise" and getting along. The public does not care about that. They want a better economy and better policies. They do not care how it gets done. Indeed, they do not care if legislation gets passed. To the public, legislation is not "accomplishments." They just want things to get better.

Speaking for me only