NBA Playoffs, Round 2

Results of my Round 1 picks: Picked 6 winners correctly, 2 in the correct number of games. The 2 I got wrong I had picked to lose in Round 2 anyway, so that's something, but the Spurs-to-sweep pick was really, really bad. Onward.

Round 2: Conference Semi-Finals
Eastern Conference
#1 Bulls against #5 Hawks. I underestimated how good the Hawks can be when they are on. However, I don't really trust them to keep it up. They also have no answer for DRose. Bulls 4-1.
#2 Heat against #3 Celtics. I go back and forth on this one. Celtics have a gigantic advantage at the point, the Heat significant advantages at SG and SF. Celtics are probably slightly better at PF/C, and the bench, and coaching. With a healthy and effective Shaq I'd feel better about it, but I think I'll go with the team that's gone thru the battles anyway. Celtics 4-2.

Western Conference
#2 Lakers against #3 Mavericks. I still feel the same way as before, the Lakers are just better. Lakers 4-1.
#4 Thunder against #8 Grizzlies. I certainly didn't give the Griz enough credit, particularly since I've always thought Battier is underrated and I should have given them credit for that pickup. However, the Thunder have been playing at a champion's level, and I think they will handle this matchup relatively easily. Thunder 4-1.

Round 3: Conference Finals
Eastern Conference
#1 Bulls against #3 Celtics. This will be the Bulls first real challenge, and I'm guessing that they are not quite ready for it. Of course, they have the advantage of youth, so if they Celtics lose because of injuries, I really can't complain. Really looking forward to this, especially Rondo v. Rose. Celtics 4-2.

Western Conference
#2 Lakers against #4 Thunder. I love this matchup. I think the Thunder are ready to knock the Lakers off. They have the quality big men to match up with Gasol, Bynum and Odom, the elite scorer in Durant to take over games, the excellent PG to take advantage of Fisher, and the good young SG to keep Kobe from dominating. Thunder 4-2.

NBA Finals
Celtics against Thunder. I can't decide if I'm excited for this matchup, or dreading it. But I think the Thunder take Boston down if it happens. Thunder 4-2.

More dishonesty from BDL

The NY Times had a Room for Debate forum about Bernanke, the Fed, etc. In Megan McArdle's portion she wrote a fairly blah piece, talking about how some see it this way, some another. DeLong's response? To go after her because "she talks about how Ben Bernanke has been 'recklessly ignoring inflation'." Go read what she wrote. I support criticizing her for her Shape of the Earth type writing, and I agree with DeLong that Bernanke and The Fed are doing too little (I'd put it a slightly different way, but that's splitting hairs at this point), but why lie about what she wrote? Delong has shot whatever remained of his credibility.

NBA Playoffs

Alright, time for the NBA playoffs! It looks like it's going to be a great one this year, especially from Round 2 on. I'm going to give picks for all 4 rounds now, but plan to reevaluate in between each round as well.

Round 1
Eastern Conference
#1 Bulls against #8 Pacers. Pretty simple really. The Bulls are really good, and the Pacers are the worst team to make the post-season. Only concerns with the Bulls are their lack of extensive playoff experience, and that one of their strengths (the bench) is less important in the playoffs. Still, Bulls will win all games in Chicago this series, and games in Indy figure to be toss ups. So, Bulls 4-1.
#2 Heat against #7 76ers. For all the drama, the Heat are really good. In some ways better built for the playoffs. The 76ers definitely got a lot better as the season went along, but they're still just somewhat above average. I wouldn't be surprised with a sweep, but the 76ers should be able to get one at home. Heat 4-1.
#3 Celtics against #6 Knicks. Not completely objective here, but I think my Celtics biases more or less offset. Still concerned about what's going on at center, as not confident that Shaq will be healthy and effective, don't trust Jermaine, and Nenad is fine only if he's getting short minutes. Even so, the Celtics have a better team, better coaching, and lot more experience together. I sense a pattern here. Celtics 4-1.
#4 Magic against #5 Hawks. Apparently there's some talk that the Hawks could pull off an upset. Technically, yes, as there's always a chance. However, the Magic (though flawed) are much better, and I think the basis for thinking it could happen is a little bit of an illusion (Jason Collins guarding Dwight Howard so well). If Collins does that and the Hawks guard the 3 well, then they have a good chance, but I don't really buy it. Magic 4-1.
Western Conference
#1 Spurs against #8 Grizzlies. The Grizzlies were openly hoping to play the Spurs. Good call, guys. You're only two hopes were for a significant injury, or for the Spurs to not take you seriously. You still have the injury hope, but no way the Spurs don't bring it. Spurs 4-0.
#2 Lakers against #7 Hornets. The Hornets have one huge advantage, Chris Paul versus Derek Fisher. In my opinion, Paul is still by far the best point guard around (sorry DRose, you're excellent, but you're no CP3). Unfortunately, that's about it. I hope the Hornets can pull it off, but it seems likely the Lakers big men will control these games. Lakers 4-1.
#3 Mavericks against #6 Trail Blazers. Will probably be the second best Round 1 series. Dallas has been a little bit worse since losing Caron Butler, and Portland has been better since acquiring Gerald Wallace. If Portland's multiple guys that they'll send Dirk's way can, either stop or nearly stop him, they'll win. Or if Brandon Roy can be close to his old self (not likely). I think it's going the distance. Mavericks 4-3.
#4 Thunder against #5 Nuggets. Likely to be the best series in Round 1. The Nuggets have a deep, athletic, young, uptempo, high-scoring team. The Thunder have one of the league's very best players, and have been playing very very well since trading for Perkins (argghhh). I could see the Nuggets falling apart, but we also could see them winning games 120-105. Thunder 4-3.

Round 2: Conference Semi-Finals
Eastern Conference
#1 Bulls against #4 Magic. Don't discount the Magic's chances just yet. Bulls 4-3.
#2 Heat against #3 Celtics. What happens at center could change my mind. Heat 4-3.
Western Conference
#1 Spurs against #4 Thunder. My first upset. Young legs beat wily vets. Thunder 4-2.
#2 Lakers against #3 Mavericks. The Lakers are just better. Lakers 4-1.

Round 3: Conference Finals
Eastern Conference
#1 Bulls against #2 Heat. Tough call. We'll learn a lot more about both clubs before we reach this point. Leaning towards the Heat. Heat 4-2.
Western Conference
#2 Lakers against #4 Thunder. The Thunder have been playing much better recently, and will probably be a little stronger at this point. Thunder 4-2.

NBA Finals
Heat against Thunder. The Thunder are a more balanced team, and will have better karma working for them (cough, refs). Thunder 4-2.

Alright then

Well, Obama has joined the debate. A bit demagogue-y, but still. My preliminary read on it is that his plan is about 85% serious, so a step up from Ryan's in that respect. Of course Krugman's reaction is to gloss over all of his unserious maneuvers that mirror Ryan's. $3T in unspecified deduction eliminations? Completely ridiculous. $1T? Well done.
On the Medicare part of it, I find the plan terrible. Serious, I suppose, but terrible. Have we not learned that central planning is unworkable? However, here is a compromise plan I think would actually work, giving people pining for socialized medicine what they're looking for, and people looking for more individual choice what we're looking for. Well done, Tyler.

Paul Ryan

I partially agree with Krugman's assessment of Paul Ryan's budget plan. The growth assumptions look aggressive, and many key parts of it are...unspecified. However, I do have some disagreements as well.
Krugman says that anyone who didn't regard his original blueprint for the proposal as unserious has no credibility. What were the reasons to regard it as unserious? That the CBO hadn't evaluated the tax part of it. Which it hadn't done because it was swamped with Obamacare. And...that seems to be all of it. Now, that he still hasn't had CBO score it is bad, but complaining about it at that time would be like complaining that I hadn't proven my senior thesis at the time that I was proposing it, or calling a batter out for not touching home plate after a home run, when he was still making his way to first base.
On Medicare, again, the assumptions look aggressive. However, Krugman's key complaint is that the spending cuts won't actually be allowed to go through once they would start to take effect in many years. And he may be right; I too am pessimistic about the likelihood of large spending cuts. But then, Medicare as it is currently plotted will definitely not be allowed happen, it's much too generous. You punch through your target (especially when your growth assumptions are too rosy).
Lastly, many people are complaining that he doesn't touch military spending. This is simply untrue. As you can see here, the part of the budget that includes defense spending in his plan is currently at 12% of GDP, and his plan cuts that to 3.5%. Defense spending right now is about 6%. No way to do that without cuts to the military, or very high growth in the economy.
All in all, I'd call his plan about 75% serious. Which makes it about 75% more serious than anything I see coming from the other side of the aisle.
UPDATE: I've looked more closely at the economic growth projections, and they actually look a lot more reasonable than I thought. The unemployment rate is ridiculous, but the GDP growth numbers are not outrageous at all. Not saying I trust Heritage, but how these numbers feed into deficit projections aren't a big strike against it or the plan.

Nice

The old switcheroo.

Bahhhhhhh!

Bahhhhhh! How they filmed the zero G scenes in Inception. Bahhhhhh!