A Hub Blog Christmas present to readers
A special Christmas present from me to you: ‘Shut Up, Fat Boy!’ … And such moving holiday sentiments: “We’re gonna celebrate this win, and I’m gonna let him have the worst Christmas he can have.” ... Don't you love it? ... Merry Christmas everyone!  ¶ 7:23 AM

  ¶ 6:49 AM

The resurgence of Ivy League sports -- and money
Ivy League sports programs are enjoying a competitive renaissance because of the across-the-board financial aid packages offered by universities to all students, not just athletes, thus attracting higher caliber jocks to Ivy schools in the process, the NYT reports. ... It makes sense. To a degree. But what's ultimately the difference between a "financial aid package" and an old-fashioned "scholarship," which have long been banned in the Ivy League? Scholarships are used to recruit and entice athletes to universities. Now financial-aid packages are used to recruit and entice athletes to universities. They're used for the same purposes. Right? The Ivies are semantically changing their definition of scholarships. That's what's happening, whether the universities care to admit it to themselves or not.

Update -- From Reader AM:

The Ivies haven't really changed anything in regard to scholarships. The story has been, for more than 50 years, that student-athletes are generally given an advantage in the admissions process (i.e., their potential contributions to the school as athletes weigh heavily) but not in financial aid -- all aid is need-based and fully meets need. It can't be taken away because you get hurt, or the new coach doesn't want you, or whatever (which was BTW true of athletic scholarships until about 1967); nor, for that matter, if your grades are low. No over-signing or partial scholarships or any of that stuff. In a sense, it's simply a matter of need-based versus merit aid. (The military academies follow a third course -- they pay everyone.)

What has happened is that the NCAA cap on athletic scholarships has in effect dropped their value well below that of a full-boat "academic" scholarship. There's controversy with NCAA D1 now about raising the cap -- looks like that won't happen (after initial approval) because of opposition from less affluent programs. (Many observers believe that raising the dollar limit was a ploy be big-money schools/conferences to split the division once again.) But for the time being, anyway, a student-athlete who qualifies for need-based aid, which is most of them, gets a better deal financially (and probably academically) by going Ivy.

  ¶ 7:59 AM

Charles Gasparino: Break up the big banks
Chalres Gasparino calls for a break-up of the Too Big Too Fail banks. He’s right. But here are the obstacles preventing such action:

1.) The big banks own Washington. They don’t want to be broken up. Therefore Washington won’t act. Both Democrats and Republicans are at fault here.

2.) A break-up would require empowering government to take action. Can Republicans philosophically bring themselves to admit this? I doubt it. They’ve embraced a quasi-utopian economic notion that the private sector is always perfect and the public sector is always imperfect – and therefore an imperfect government can’t possibly intervene to fix something that’s already theoretically perfect. It would blow their minds – and blow up their perfect ideological world view – to admit this.

So, in the name of keeping government out of the financial markets, we're going to guarantee government intervention in the financial markets on a far vaster scale, i.e. future massive bailouts of Too Big Too Fail banks. ... As I've said before, you can have a little government intervention now, or a lot of government intervention later. It's a simple choice.  ¶ 7:37 AM

Rick Perry: Double dipper
He's such a hack. Worse: He's a hack hypocrite, collecting a $92,000 state pension while criticizing Social Security as a giant Ponzi scheme. ... Btw: The maximum Social Security benefit a person can receive is about one-third what Perry is getting from the Texas pension system. Another example of our three-tiered class system in this country: Financiers, government workers, and the rest of us.  ¶ 4:17 PM

Vaclev Havel, RIP
He was a true man of peace and freedom. One of the greats of the ‘80s and early ‘90s, along with Lech Walesa, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, and Corazon Aquino. Unarmed, they stood up to tyranny – and tyranny flinched. ... The NYT's succinct, says-it-all lead:

Vaclav Havel, the dissident playwright who wove theater into politics to peacefully bring down communism in Czechoslovakia and become a hero of the epic struggle that ended the Cold War, has died. He was 75.

  ¶ 9:02 AM

'Tom vs. Tim'
Can't wait.  ¶ 8:45 AM

Yet another public-sector perk: Cashing in on 'unused' vacation and sick time
So former Chelsea housing director Michael E. McLaughlin worked only 15-hour weeks -- and yet cashed in for $81,578 in alleged "unused" vacation time and a whopping $114,237 in alleged "unused" sick time. Crunching the numbers, the Globe says that means he took only four vacation days since 2003 and 3.5 hours of sick time over the past 12 years, assuming you believe McLaughlin's claims. Do you believe McLaughlin's claims? ...

Let's face it: This may be an egregious example, but this general type of vacation- and sick-time "sell back" happens all the time in government. Five-figure and six-figure vacation- and sick-time payouts are not at all unusual. Not only do government workers get better and more secure pensions and retirement benefits than private-sector workers, they also get big lump-sum wads of cash at the end of their careers. Private-sector employees largely work under a "use or lose it" system for vacation and sick days. There's no accumulated cash outs at the end of their careers, no extra five-figure or six-figure pot of gold awaiting them. So why do public-sector workers get this so-often-abused perk? Supporters say it's because public workers will start taking more vacation days and calling in sick more often without it. The appropriate answer: Well, yeah, what's wrong with that? But under the current warped system, we all know they do get vacations and sick days and lump-sum payments. The record keeping on this front is simply a joke -- and everyone knows it. ... The new three-tiered class system in this country: Financiers, government workers, and the rest of us.  ¶ 8:06 AM

Another reason to miss Kendrick: Jeff Green out for season
Ahhh! ... It makes the Kendrick Perkins trade sting even more. ... Hope Jeff recovers and is back as strong as ever next year. ... It must be said: The memory of the Reggie Lewis tragedy must have weighed on the Celtics' minds, consciously or unconsciously, when they first learned of Green's heart woes. It's good Green and the Celts are acting decisively on the medical front.  ¶ 1:08 PM

Remembering George Kennan
After reading reviews here and here and here of John Lewis Gaddis’s new biography on George Kennan, I finally got around to reading Kennan’s famous ‘X article’ outlining the Cold War strategy of containment and its likely outcome if the U.S. held firm. From beginning to end, the essay, written in 1947, is the work of brilliance – a brilliance that was ultimately confirmed by how history played out. Kennan didn’t just outline how and why the Soviet Union needed to be contained. He outlined how and why the Soviet Union would ultimately collapse. …

Much is being made about Kennan’s own “ultra conservative” and “almost monarchist” political views, suggesting he was no big fan of American democracy and destiny. He was definitely an elitist and highly skeptical about whether America had the will and wisdom to act as an effective world leader. But this is how he concluded his famous ‘X’ essay:

The issue of Soviet-American relations is in essence a test of the overall worth of the United States as a nation among nations. To avoid destruction the United States need only measure up to its own best traditions and prove itself worthy of preservation as a great nation.

Surely, there was never a fairer test of national quality than this. In the light of these circumstances, the thoughtful observer of Russian-American relations will find no cause for complaint in the Kremlin's challenge to American society. He will rather experience a certain gratitude to a Providence which, by providing the American people with this implacable challenge, has made their entire security as a nation dependent on their pulling themselves together and accepting the responsibilities of moral and political leadership that history plainly intended them to bear.

There's a hearty dose of idealism in those words, mixed with stern realism, suggesting reviewers may be focusing a little too much on Kennan's gloomy elitism.

FYI: I can't remember if I've ever read the 'X' essay in its entirety before. Probably not. I definitely knew about it and read about it -- and read portions of it over the years.  ¶ 12:03 PM

Casino interests maneuvering ... Part II
Brighton Reader's spy report on casinos has been confirmed, with some added details. Suffolk Downs -- surprise, surprise -- was the one conducting the loaded-questions poll about casinos. We're shocked. Shocked!  ¶ 7:57 AM

America’s insane energy policy
It’s kind of sick: On the same day America finally ends a war brought about partly by the country’s dependence on Middle East oil, Republicans successfully push to keep energy-hogging incandescent light bulbs while Democrats continue to resist building the new Keystone XL pipeline from Canada. … Incredible. … Is this a great country or what?  ¶ 12:23 PM

Iraq: Mission Over (Sort of)
Of course, the historic semi-end to the American involvement in Iraq shouldn't be confused with the historic mission-accomplished pronouncement in 2003. ... Then again, maybe they're just one in the same. ... After reluctantly supporting the war in 2003, I've long since concluded it was a strategic and tragic distraction and mistake. There were some definite pluses to the invasion. Chief among them: The fall of Saddam. But it cost more than it was worth. All these years later, the failure to find WMD in Iraq still rankles. All these years later, the inept pre-invasion occupation plans, if you can call them that, still astound. All these years later, the initial denial that we were involved in a full-fledged guerilla war still frustrates. Add it all up, and today's events are bittersweet.  ¶ 9:24 AM

Casino interests are maneuvering for position on the PR front
Hub Blog's spies are reporting in on casino-related activities. From Brighton Reader: "Yesterday I got a long polling call about casinos, specifically the proposal for Suffolk Downs. Clearly they were trying to find out which arguments in favor of a casino in East Boston will work. It was always referred to as 'a world-class complex.' It will be interesting to see how this plays out." ...

Hmmm. Word-class complex. Definitely sounds like something coming out of City Hall or meant to appeal to someone in City Hall. Now who could that be?

Update -- Steve Wynn has launched his own "soft-sell kickoff to the wooing of Foxborough." He's throwing in free day-care services for future employees. Can a world-class Suffolk Downs match that? Huh? ... Personally, I think every red-blooded American should have a soft serve ice cream machine in their own home. Do I hear a bid, Suffolk?  ¶ 5:50 AM

'Baby was Baby'
Peter May says Big Baby will be missed. I agree. He wasn't a superstar. He didn't have the consistency of one. But when he played well, he played really well. ... Via Reader No. 1.  ¶ 5:58 AM

The Occupy protests: Correlation or cause of public outrage?

There’s a funny Bloomberg/BusinessWeek post going around about how you can use statistics to prove anything. My favorite chart from the post: “Is Facebook Driving the Greek Debt Crisis?” Well, the statistics do show a strong correlation between the two.

Anyway, I was thinking of the correlation-causation question after reading all the laudatory things being said about the Occupy Boston protests, which mercifully came to an end yesterday. The main compliment: The protesters “drew attention” to the issue of income inequality in the U.S. But it obviously wasn’t just a protest about income inequality. The movement specifically targeted Wall Street, Boston’s Financial District, and other obvious symbols of the nation’s financial system. The protesters were tapping into a deep public zeitgeist over the government’s bailout of an industry that played a key role in causing the Great Recession and today’s ongoing financial crisis.

The public was already pretty riled up about economic conditions and Wall Street by the time the Occupy protests started in September – which, it should be noted, was three long years after the financial crisis started. Movies and documentaries had already been made or produced about the financial crisis. (Personally, I can’t decide which I liked better: HBO’s “Too Big Too Fail” or “Margin Call.” They’re both great. I was impressed but not wowed by the Academy Award winning “Inside Job.”) Books about the financial crisis have been rolling out of publishing houses ever since Lehman’s collapse in 2008. Jon Stewart has been busy over the past three years creating a comedic cottage industry out of Wall Street’s never-ending string of antics. Hey, even Hub Blog has been ranting about Wall Street over the past three years. Etc., etc., etc.

So, please, spare me the accolades about how Occupy protesters “drew attention” to income inequality, Wall Street, economic injustice, and other related matters. If anything, a good question to ask, as alluded to above, is: What took them so long to protest Wall Street? Part of the answer is that they were too busy protesting for or against climate change, Obama-care, the Israeli-Palestinian faceoff, the wars, and just about everything else on the left-wing protest check-off list.

Now we’re getting to the crux of the matter: The Occupy movement was not a “broad based” protest movement. It was largely a left-wing protest movement, as much as the MSM tries to ignore or gloss over that obvious elephant-in-the-room fact. Most people realized the average Occupier was a dime-a-dozen hippie-wannabe protester, the type we’ve seen countless times before over the decades, attending protests like they were attending Catholic masses, performing all the familiar rituals and repeating the same chants, declaring their righteousness and devotion to the moral cause at hand.

Still, despite decades of enduring ham-handed left-wing street theater, people like yours truly and Michael Lewis and Mark Cuban and even libertarians initially, if grudgingly, welcomed the protests. It wasn’t so much about protesters “drawing attention” to important economic issues. It was more about them giving second-wind, and a new dimension, to protests about economic matters in this country. The Occupiers were ultimately followers, not leaders. They arrived late to the great economic debate -- and long after right-wing Tea Partiers showed up. But at least they arrived, complete with annoying bongo drums, tired “Hey ho” chants, and their Che Guevara T-shirts. They made a difference, even though it would have been nice if they had been around to counter Wall Street’s army of lobbyists while the Dodd-Frank bill was being written and watered down to mush in 2010.

Almost inevitably, though, the Occupy protests became about ‘60s nostalgia and a celebration of themselves. The Pete Seger and Susan Sarandon and Michael Moore types started showing up at the protests. The ‘die-ins’ commenced. The protests branched out to Israeli consulates. The phony bandana-wearing anarchists took center stage. (Ooooo. They were so mean looking!) The itch, even desire, to get arrested became a central component of getting their Protest Merit Badges. (I once met a person who bragged how she tried to save every plastic handcuff slapped on her wrists after being “arrested” at protests; I’m sure she’s since handed them down to her grandchildren, almost like family heirlooms and religious icons.)

The bottom line: The Occupy movement overstayed its welcome – and usefulness.

This is also true: We won’t recognize the movement’s protesters after their supporters and admirers finish touching up and re-writing their history. The Occupy protesters have now entered the left-wing pantheon of great protests. They’re going to be as big as the Port Huron signing! Though not as big as the ’68 Chicago or Woodstock events (the real ‘60s protesters will make sure of that; they’re very turf conscious when it comes to mythological pecking orders).

But I don’t want to leave on a cynical note. The Occupy protesters did some good. They helped galvanize the opposition to Wall Street’s now protected status as “too big too fail." The protesters weren't the cause or catalyst of public outrage. They merely reflected it. But at least they did something, even if it their means were tardy, annoying and misguided at times.

Next up on the protest agenda: A little more outrage over the MF Global scandal? I mean, how the hell do you misplace $1.2 billion in customers’ money? How? Only on Wall Street.  ¶ 11:14 AM

'Determined to risk a confrontation'
A once somewhat admirable protest has long since dissolved into classic lefty street theater. Now the play is approaching its finale. The self-appointed heroes must have one last 'confrontation' with the police and powers that be. They want a confrontation. They need a confrontation. If anything, they need it for their Advanced Arrest Protest Merit Badges! ... If this had been a Tea Party protest ...

Ultimately, this is what OccupyBoston ultimately morphed into, and we all know it: "It’s an experience. It was really nice, like a really tiny city. I never really looked into what the 1960s was like, but if it was like this, it was awesome." ... It was an experience! ... It was awesome! ... Give that man his Occupy Boston Merit Badge! ...  ¶ 8:12 AM

Republicans can blame themselves for Elizabeth Warren
Reacting to the latest poll showing Elizabeth Warren leading Scott Brown in the U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts, Brighton Reader writes in:

The Republicans should regret not letting Elizabeth Warren become head of the new Consumer Protection Bureau. If not for her, Scott Brown would have won. The other candidates would not have been able to raise enough money and volunteers to knock him off. Now the seat is in play, forcing the national party to divert a lot more money and effort to hold the seat. Brown is a hard-working and disciplined campaigner, has been shrewd in his votes, and has lots of appeal to the non-ideological part of the electorate. But people are mad, really mad, about the financial crisis and the bailouts, and are still looking a way to register their anger. Voting for Elizabeth Warren may be it.

In their heart of hearts, lots of Democrats wish Warren could somehow magically replace Kerry. She has passion, and somehow seems like she would really cares what happens in Massachusetts, as opposed to the current senior senator (D-Louisburg Square & Nantucket).

Why either party feels any obligation to defend the financial industry baffles me. But they both do it, to different degrees and in different ways.

Hub Blog warned a few months ago that Brown couldn't afford to come across as the candidate of Wall Street. He isn't. He's voted against Wall Street's interests in the past and probably will do so in the future. But he's also getting a lot of anti-Warren donations from the financier class, and the perception that he's being bankrolled by Wall Street looks awful. He needs to find a voice on this issue without coming across as pandering to anti-Wall Street sentiments. Suggestion: Pound into the notion that crony capitalism -- as practiced today by Wall Street and other protected industries (hint, hint: Solyndra et gang) -- needs to go.

Update -- Here's some ammunition for Brown: Wall Street and solar-energy subsidies. ... Crony capitalism rides again! ...  ¶ 5:52 AM

Remembering Pearl Harbor, one last time
It's nice to see so many papers and sites giving space to the 70th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Here are the Globe and Herald stories, along with an excellent photo round-up at Business Insider. But the NYT cuts to the heart of the matter: This will probably be the last major anniversary with more than a handful of Pearl Harbor survivors still around. Maybe a few in their early or late 90s will be alive for the 75th and 80th anniversaries. But their numbers are dwindling fast. ... Anyway, all of this might sound a bit morbid, but it's the sad thought many of us hold when we mark WWII anniversaries these days: The Greatest Generation is passing into history. Growing up, I can remember bumping into WWII veterans everywhere I turned. One friend's father was a Pearl Harbor veteran. Another friend's father served on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific. Another friend's father fought on Iwo Jima. And another friend's father was a medic-doctor on Utah Beach in Normandy. The list goes on and on. And now they're either gone or so old. It's sad.  ¶ 8:22 AM