Steve Stricker’s Low-Key Fashion Was a Excellent Match

Ann Liguori talks to Alex Miceli about the importance of the record-breaking 19: 9 victory of the US Ryder Cup team against the European team and whether, in his opinion, Steve Stricker will lead the US Ryder Cup team in Rome in 2023.

More highlights from this episode:

  • Will Padraig Harrington return to captain the team?
  • The strong game of the Ryder Cup rookies
  • When the feud between Brooks Koepka and Bryson DeChambeau is over
  • Rory McIlroy’s fights
  • Of all the Ryder Cups he has played, which Ryder Cup was his favorite?

Read more Ryder Cup coverage this morning

Farewell to a Ryder Cup in which the US was always two steps ahead
5 mistakes Europe made that cornered them
Handing out marks for each player’s performance
Video: What did this US team do so well?
American red wave floods Europe
Rory swears and apologizes in the emotional interview
DJ is the first American to go 5-0 since 1979
USA wins Back Cup in a dominant manner
Readers listen to Brooks Koepka’s curses

Steve Kornacki on Election 2020 Protection and Turning into a Model Icon

Your coverage of the marathon elections was legendary. Are you still recovering

We started at 6pm on Tuesday evening. I slept a couple of hours from Wednesday to Thursday, then went straight back inside. Thursday through Friday we worked around the clock again and I was out all night. That was the night Biden took the lead in Georgia. It was three or four in the morning. There’s a board that I use in the air, and right behind it we had a couple of folding chairs and a table. I would come out of the air and sit down and my eyes would be so heavy I could have fallen asleep. But as soon as we got an update I got an energy boost and had no problem. I didn’t feel tired in the air. The election was finally scheduled on Saturday around 11:30 am and I was out of the studio by noon.

You have suddenly become a style icon for your uniform of gap khakis, white shirt and tie. Did you have to wear a uniform to school as a child?

It was a very strange thing to see the attention my clothes got just because it was so inversely related to the amount of thought I put into them. I went to a public school so we didn’t have to wear a tie. I still couldn’t even tie a tie if you asked me to. When it comes to pants, they say that consumption habits are established at a relatively young age. Well, about 20 years ago I wore these pants and said, ah, this works for me, and out of habit I just keep buying them and never think about them.

Wait, you don’t know how to tie a tie?

I learned that all you need to know is people who know how to tie ties and they will tie them for you and you can put them on and off easily. I have a shelf in my office that has three ties on it right now and they’re all tied so they’re ready to go.

How does it feel to become such a beloved public figure? You have People’s “Sexiest Man Alive!” List, celebrities have your name screaming and have been on all talk shows.

Since this is all happening during the pandemic, I don’t really feel it. It’s not like I’m going anywhere. Seeing some of the stuff online was flattering, but strange. I also think these things come and go.

What’s the strangest thing a fan sent you?

I received a couple of ties. And as I said, I can’t really tie them.

They crack statistics and data. Were you good at math in school?

I was probably the worst calculus student in my high school history. To this day I have stress dreams that I am back to trigonometry or calculus, trying to figure out the volume of a cone or sphere. But for whatever reason, I’m good at computer math, adding and subtracting on the fly. And I actually did statistics for my high school basketball team.

What was it like going from the election to the NFL playoff probability breakdown for Sunday Night Football?

It flowed naturally. I played Road to 270 on the board for two months – “If Biden wins this state but if Trump wins this state” – and it’s the same for playoffs: “See if the Steelers lose this game next week and The Bills.” win this game, it’s going to change the playoff picture so much. ”I’m a huge sports fan and follow this stuff at first so it was a really similar approach.

You wrote a book in 2018, The Red and the Blue, about the birth of tribalism in our political parties. Do you see an episode between sport and politics these days?

The tribalism of sport invades our politics. In sport, if the referee makes a call and goes against the home team, it doesn’t matter if the call is right or wrong, the crowd will make fun of it. And if the call goes in favor of the home team, the crowd will cheer, and again, it has nothing to do with whether the call itself is right or wrong. It has to do with it, did it help or harm the team we’re cheering for? It’s a healthy thing in sport, but I don’t think that’s a healthy thing in politics.

What does the rest of 2021 have in store for you?

I’m as curious as anyone about what American politics will look like in a month, three months, six months from now. There will be mid-term elections next year. There will be some gubernatorial elections this fall. The New York Mayor’s race will take place later this year. I’m sure there will be some high stakes special elections. I know wherever they are, whenever they are, whatever they are, I’ll cover them live when the voices come in.

Steve Chapman – Losing cash is a foul thought | Opinion Columnists

Last spring, Treasury sent “Economic Impact Payments” of $ 1,200 for each qualified adult to approximately 160 million people. In September, Gallup asked people if they would like the government to give them more money.

Lo and behold, 70% of them said yes. Only 17% said no – a group that may have been dominated by those who did not qualify for the first time and were seething with resentment.

When President Donald Trump proposed distributing another round of checks for $ 2,000 per person in December, he again found a receptive audience. Two-thirds of Americans were willing to do their patriotic duty in order to accept more money. In the end, however, Congress approved payments of just $ 600.

President Joe Biden is now looking to make up the difference by writing checks for $ 1,400 to the vast majority of Americans. In the midst of an economic crisis sparked by a raging pandemic, there are many ways the federal government could spend money that would be both inexpensive and humane. Stimulus payments are not included.

Now is no time for austerity. Millions of people have lost their jobs and are unlikely to return to work until a large part of the population is vaccinated against COVID-19. Tens of thousands of businesses have closed due to public health regulations or missing customers. The federal government should stand ready to take on large amounts of new debt to alleviate widespread hardship and prevent the economy from collapsing.

However, this commitment is not an excuse for spending that is ill-suited to either task. While additional stimulus checks will help Americans who are in serious need, they will help many more people who are not. Anyone earning $ 99,000 or less, or a household of two adults with incomes of $ 150,000 or less, was entitled to the full amount of the initial payments.

Approximately 90% of Americans got something that’s double the number of people who say they suffered the economic effects of the pandemic. It is one thing for Uncle Sam to go into debt in order to save people from misery. It is another thing to do to improve the comfort of people who are fully employed and financially secure.

The checks are commonly referred to as stimulus payments, but are not intended to stimulate the economy.

Stimulus is also not what the economy needs. In a normal recession, people will spend less money losing their jobs or fear of losing it, causing the economy to decline. The federal government can help in the short term by giving people money to spend.

This time, however, the economy contracted because the pandemic halted or restricted a variety of activities. Giving people money doesn’t help if they can’t or don’t want to do so many things that involve money – eat out, go to the movies, buy clothes, go on a trip, or throw a party. It’s like wasting matches to light a sodden bang.

The pointlessness of this approach became clear after the first payment round. A study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that only 40% of the money was spent on goods and services, with the balance supposed to reduce debt or increase savings.

The $ 600 checks cost $ 166 billion, and the $ 1,400 back payment would bring a total of $ 600 billion, according to the Committee on Responsible Federal Budget. That money could be spent in far more productive ways – to keep businesses and nonprofits from going bankrupt; Enable tenants to pay their rent; or fund COVID-19 treatment, testing, and vaccinations.

Restricting payments to individuals with incomes up to $ 50,000 and families with incomes up to $ 75,000 would save $ 200 billion and focus aid on the people who are most likely to need and spend it.

It would be a wrong economy for Washington to forego urgent needs during a crisis. But that does not excuse pumping out cash with a fire hose. Every dollar borrowed adds to the swollen federal debt. We are fortunate that interest rates are now low, making it cheap to borrow. But they won’t stay low forever, and when they go up, taxpayers will groan under the weight.

Most Americans would be happy if the federal government gave them free money, just as they would be happy if someone offered them free beer or free food. You may not notice that they are volunteering to pick up the tab.

(Steve Chapman is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune and Creators Syndicate.)