Danny White vs Roger Staubach

Posted on August 26, 2025 by Luke Ford

I don’t think I love any athlete as much as I love Roger Staubach, but I am watching some Cowboys games on Youtube from the early 1980s, and I’m struck by Danny White’s grace and charisma. Danny White had presence and swagger. He stands tall. I love Roger Staubach, but he ran like a constipated girl.

Danny White is much more pleasing to the eye. He throws a lovelier ball. He moves more gracefully.

Grok: “White definitely had that bold, gunslinger charisma, and his athleticism gave him some serious swagger. Staubach, though, was all heart and hustle—maybe his running style wasn’t the smoothest, but that dude’s clutch gene and leadership were unreal.”

ChatGPT:

Staubach and White were totally different personalities and styles. Staubach was a technician and competitor, more buttoned-down, precise, and businesslike. White carried himself with more flash — confident, smooth, and visibly in command. That “swagger” you’re talking about showed up in the way he threw, stood in the pocket, and even how he carried himself off the field.

Staubach didn’t have that same body language; he looked more like a disciplined Navy officer, which makes sense given his background. White’s vibe was more Hollywood quarterback. Staubach was all about grit, guts, and precision. White projected charisma. Two different brands of leadership.

Staubach
– Mechanically, he was quick, efficient, and decisive. He got the ball out fast, processed defenses like a computer, and prided himself on precision. When he ran, it was functional—scrambling to extend plays or to pick up necessary yardage, not to strut. His gait looked a little awkward, almost stiff, which is why people say he “ran like a girl.” But it was effective—he just wasn’t graceful.
– His leadership was stoic and military-like. He commanded respect with discipline and toughness, not flash. Players followed him because he was consistent and all business.

Danny White
– As a thrower, he had a looser, more fluid motion. He stood taller in the pocket, carried himself with confidence, and wasn’t afraid to let it rip. He looked like he believed he owned the field.
– As a runner, White wasn’t a burner, but he had balance and composure. He moved like an athlete who knew eyes were on him. He looked natural, in control, stylish even.
– His leadership style had more showmanship. He projected charisma. Teammates and fans saw that swagger and presence—you felt him even when he wasn’t making a play.

In short: Staubach’s style was all discipline, grit, and precision—a Navy man running an offense. White’s was charisma, presence, and rhythm—a quarterback who knew he looked the part and played into it.

How often did Dallas under Danny White and Tony Romo have top ten defenses? Only once, for Romo, in 2009. White and Romo had to carry heavier burdens than Staubach and Troy Aikman. When it comes to Wins Above Replacement, White and Romo might be the best.

Grok:

The claim that Staubach and Aikman benefited from better defenses is partially true but needs nuance:Staubach (1969–1979): Played with the “Doomsday Defense,” one of the NFL’s best, featuring Hall of Famers like Bob Lilly, Mel Renfro, and Randy White. From 1971–1979, the Cowboys’ defense ranked in the top 10 in points allowed in eight of nine seasons, often top 5. This bolstered Staubach’s win percentage and playoff success (4 Super Bowl appearances, 2 wins).

Aikman (1989–2000): Played with a strong 1990s defense, including Charles Haley, Darren Woodson, and Deion Sanders. The Cowboys’ defense ranked top 10 in points allowed in six of Aikman’s 12 seasons, peaking during the Super Bowl years (1992–1995). However, early in his career (1989–1990), the defense was poor, contributing to his 0-11 rookie season.

White (1980–1988): Inherited the tail end of the Doomsday Defense, but it declined after 1982. From 1980–1982, the defense was top 10 in points allowed, aiding White’s three NFC Championship runs. By the mid-1980s, the defense weakened (e.g., 15th in points allowed in 1985), and White lacked the elite support Staubach had.

Romo (2003–2016): Played with inconsistent defenses. The Cowboys’ defense ranked top 10 in points allowed in only four of Romo’s starting years (2006–2015), with notable lows (e.g., 26th in 2010, 23rd in 2013). Romo often carried weaker teams, boosting his “value over replacement” argument.

Prescott (2016–2024): Benefited from strong defenses in some years (e.g., 5th in points allowed in 2016, 7th in 2021), but also faced poor defenses (e.g., 28th in 2020). His support has been mixed, similar to Romo’s.

Staubach and Aikman indeed had better defensive support during their peak years, particularly during Super Bowl runs. White’s defenses were strong early but faded, while Romo and Prescott often played with average or below-average defenses, increasing their burden.

Postseason Success

Aikman: 11-5 playoff record, 3 Super Bowl wins, 1 Super Bowl MVP. His 11-1 playoff start is unmatched.

Staubach: 11-6 playoff record, 2 Super Bowl wins, 1 Super Bowl MVP. Known for clutch plays like the “Hail Mary” in 1975.

White: 5-5 playoff record, 0 Super Bowl wins as a starter. Reached three NFC Championships but couldn’t break through.

Romo: 2-4 playoff record, no Super Bowl appearances. Criticized for postseason struggles (e.g., bobbled snap vs. Seattle in 2006).

Prescott: 2-5 playoff record (through 2024), no Super Bowl appearances. Losses to strong QBs like Aaron Rodgers and Brock Purdy highlight playoff shortcomings.

Aikman and Staubach’s postseason success elevates their legacy, while White, Romo, and Prescott’s lack of Super Bowl wins hurts their case in traditional rankings.

Wins Above Replacement Analysis

If we define “Wins Above Replacement” as the ability to generate wins beyond what an average or replacement-level QB would achieve, considering era, team context, and stats:Romo: His high AV (126), franchise-leading passing stats, and 61.4% win percentage despite inconsistent defenses make a strong case for him as the top “WAR” QB. He carried weaker rosters, often turning losses into wins with his playmaking (e.g., 2014’s 12-4 season). His postseason failures (2-4) are a knock, but his regular-season value is elite.

White: With a 67.4% win percentage and 103 AV, White was highly effective, especially from 1980–1982 (33-10 regular season). His defenses were solid early but not as dominant as Staubach’s, and his 5-5 playoff record suggests he maximized his roster’s potential. He’s a strong “WAR” candidate but trails Romo due to fewer starts and less statistical dominance.

Staubach: His 127 AV and 74.6% win percentage are stellar, but the Doomsday Defense and strong offensive lines (e.g., Hall of Famer Rayfield Wright) boosted his success. His era-adjusted efficiency and clutch play (21 game-winning drives) suggest high value, but his team’s strength reduces his “above replacement” edge slightly compared to Romo.

Aikman: His 121 AV and 57.0% win percentage are less impressive than Staubach’s, but his 3 Super Bowl wins and 11-5 playoff record show his value in big games. The 1990s Cowboys’ elite roster (Emmitt Smith, Michael Irvin, strong O-line) means he had more support than Romo or White, potentially lowering his “WAR” relative to them.

Prescott: His 94 AV and 61.1% win percentage are solid, but his career is ongoing. His value is comparable to Romo’s, but weaker defenses in some years (e.g., 2020) and a 2-5 playoff record limit his case for now.

Defensive Impact on Rankings

The claim that Staubach and Aikman had better defenses is supported:Staubach’s Doomsday Defense was a consistent top-5 unit, allowing him to focus on game management and comebacks.

Aikman’s defenses were elite during the Super Bowl years (1992–1995), ranking as high as 1st in points allowed (1992). His early and late career defenses were weaker, but his peak aligned with defensive dominance.

White’s defenses were strong from 1980–1982 but declined later, forcing him to do more with less.

Romo and Prescott faced more inconsistent defenses, often ranking in the teens or worse, meaning they had to carry the team more often, boosting their “WAR” case.

Conclusion

If we prioritize “Wins Above Replacement” as value over a replacement-level QB, considering stats, efficiency, and team context:Tony Romo: Likely the highest “WAR” due to his franchise-leading stats, high AV (126), and ability to win (61.4%) with inconsistent defenses and less offensive talent than Aikman or Staubach. His lack of playoff success (2-4) is a flaw but doesn’t negate his regular-season impact.

Danny White: Strong case for second due to his 67.4% win percentage, solid AV (103), and success despite declining defensive support post-1982. His three NFC Championship appearances show he maximized his roster, but fewer starts and no Super Bowl wins limit him.

Roger Staubach: Exceptional efficiency (83.4 passer rating) and wins (74.6%) make him a legend, but the Doomsday Defense and strong O-line reduce his “above replacement” edge slightly. His 127 AV and clutch play keep him close.

Troy Aikman: Three Super Bowls and 121 AV are impressive, but his 57.0% win percentage and elite supporting cast (Smith, Irvin, top defenses) suggest he leaned on his team more than Romo or White.

Dak Prescott: Solid AV (94) and 61.1% win percentage, but his ongoing career and 2-5 playoff record place him last for now. He could climb with future success.

Posted in Dallas | Comments Off on Danny White vs Roger Staubach

Is It Time For Americans To Get Some Socialized Medicine?

Posted on August 25, 2025 by Luke Ford

America’s healthcare systems seems absurd. It could surely be done better. What do you think about a base level of socialized medicine for all American citizens akin to what England and Australia have along with private options for those willing to pay? I suspect Trump would be down for this if he could get it passed.

For years, I bought into Dennis Prager’s nonsense about the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen. Now, even though my inclinations are towards small governments and free markets, I don’t see a correlation in reality between the size of the government and the size of souls.

So what would it cost to have Aussie-style socialized medicine?

ChatGPT says:

Short answer

  • Federal “sticker price”: roughly $18T–$34T over 10 years depending on design. Urban Institute’s bookends: “single-payer lite” (covers legal residents with some cost sharing) adds about $17.6T to federal outlays; an expansive version with richer benefits/no cost sharing adds about $34.0T. Urban PDF • Urban explainer
  • Mercatus estimate for the Sanders-style bill: +$32.6T federal over 10 years. Mercatus working paper • Time summary
  • Total national health spending (not just federal) could fall a bit or rise a bit. Urban shows national spending down under “lite” but up under the expansive version; CBO says it depends on benefits, payment rates, and admin savings. Commonwealth brief on Urban modeling • CBO single-payer design report

What that implies for taxes

To finance on the order of ~$30T, credible menus include: ~32% payroll tax, or ~25% income surtax, or ~42% VAT, or some mix—remember these replace most premiums and out-of-pocket costs. Clean summary: CRFB overview and the detailed PDF here.

Would quality of life improve?

  • Medical debt and bill anxiety: Americans owe an estimated ~$220B in medical debt. Eliminating premiums/deductibles (as in most M4A designs) directly attacks this. KFF/Health System Tracker
  • Financial stress and mental health: The randomized Oregon Medicaid experiment found coverage virtually eliminated catastrophic out-of-pocket costs and reduced depression and financial strain. NBER summary • NEJM paper
  • Access and affordability vs peers: The U.S. ranks last among high-income countries on overall health system performance, with especially poor affordability; universal systems have far fewer cost-related access problems. Commonwealth Fund report (PDF here)
  • Mortality: Coverage expansions like Medicaid are associated with fewer deaths; scaling to universal coverage points in the same direction. Sommers et al., NEJM 2012 • Lee et al., Lancet Public Health 2022

The tradeoffs (no sugar-coating)

  • Utilization will jump when prices and cost sharing fall. Without added capacity, some waits lengthen. CBO: demand would likely rise faster than supply if payment rates drop and cost sharing goes to zero. CBO 2022 illustrative options • CBO 2019 design report
  • Savings assumptions are make-or-break. Big system savings require: provider prices nearer Medicare than today’s private rates, drug price negotiation, and real admin simplification. Urban’s “lite vs enhanced” shows how these knobs flip total spending. Urban/CF brief
  • Who pays changes. Households/employers likely pay far less in premiums and out-of-pocket, offset by broader taxes. Distribution hinges on the financing mix you pick. CRFB • PWBM scenarios here.

Context to keep in mind

The U.S. already spends a lot: $4.9T in 2023 (17.6% of GDP). M4A mostly shifts who writes the check, not whether the nation spends on health care. CMS NHE fact sheet • Health Affairs 2025

Bottom line

  • Federal ledger impact for a true “Medicare for All”: roughly $25T–$35T over 10 years depending on scope and payment rates. Benchmarks: Urban “lite” +$17.6T; Urban “enhanced” +$34.0T; Mercatus +$32.6T. Urban • Mercatus
  • Systemwide spending could be a bit lower or a bit higher than status quo depending on the knobs (prices, benefits, admin). PWBM shows initial national spending drops of 8–16% in scenarios with lower provider prices/overhead; Urban shows national spending goes down under “lite,” up under “enhanced.” PWBM PDF • Urban/CF brief
  • Quality-of-life upside is real: far less financial fear, fewer people skipping care, and likely better population health—if capacity and implementation are handled. Medical debt data • Oregon experiment • Commonwealth Fund
Posted in Health | Comments Off on Is It Time For Americans To Get Some Socialized Medicine?

Groups That Dennis Prager Has Compared To Nazis

Posted on August 25, 2025 by Luke Ford

ChatGPT:

Related/ongoing: more Hamas–Nazi equivalences in recent videos and posts — “If You Hate Nazism, Why Don’t You Hate Hamas?” • Fireside Chat ep. 334.

Posted in Dennis Prager | Comments Off on Groups That Dennis Prager Has Compared To Nazis

IR Scholar John Mueller’s Hilarious Ouvre

Posted on August 25, 2025 by Luke Ford

Sharp, witty, contrarian. Here are direct links to his work:

Books

Papers

Dance (because yes, he’s a dance nerd too)

More on the author: Wikipedia (John Mueller) • OSU profile • Mershon Center • Cato Institute

Posted in International Law, International Relations | Comments Off on IR Scholar John Mueller’s Hilarious Ouvre

‘If your career is built on keeping people scared, Overblown will eat you alive’

Posted on August 25, 2025 by Luke Ford

ChatGPT says: Dennis Prager’s shtick is moral clarity delivered with a foghorn. John Mueller’s 2006 book Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats, and Why We Believe Them gives you the quickest way to cut through it: force probabilities, base rates, and costs onto the table—then watch the hysteria collapse.

Base-rate reality check

International terrorism generally kills only a few hundred people worldwide per year—about the order of annual bathtub drownings in the U.S. If a 9/11-scale attack happened every three months for five years, the individual fatality risk would still be ~0.02%.

Possibility vs probability (the classic hype move)

The fear script says “terrorists can strike any place, any time, with virtually any weapon.” Mueller calls that “fatuous and misleading” because it turns remote possibilities into omnipresent certainties and justifies spending everywhere. Prager’s doom talk uses the same move. Demand probabilities, not slogans.

“How dangerous is flying, really?” (translate fear into numbers)

To make flying as dangerous as driving, you’d need one set of 9/11 crashes every month. The per-flight fatality risk is about 1 in 13 million; to match that by car, you’d only need to drive 11.2 miles on rural interstates. Use that to puncture “we’re living on a knife’s edge” sermons.

Dirty bombs aren’t “apocalypse weapons”

Radiological devices are better described as weapons of mass disruption than destruction. Lethal dose dispersal is extraordinarily difficult; the main effect is panic and cleanup costs, not mass death. If a pundit sells apocalypse, ask for the dose–response math.

Overreaction kills judgment (and wastes billions)

Fear-fueled politics sprays money everywhere—from “highway security” pork to a post-9/11 “Doom Boom” for Beltway contractors—while doing little for safety. The pattern is fear → folly → waste. Don’t let moral theater hide that ledger.

Security theater as self-parody

Color-coded alerts, duct tape and plastic sheeting, and even FBI warnings about people “bearing almanacs.” When a moralizer leans on these visuals, call them what Mueller does: hysteria that teaches the public to fear, not to think.

The record of “near-misses” is thin

Behind enormous surveillance and manpower, the FBI chalked up “zeros and near-zeros” in the years Mueller audits: task forces for “suggested” plots, mass interviews, and detentions that produced no terror convictions. The “we barely survived” narrative doesn’t match the data.

What responsible teaching actually looks like

Mueller’s rule: put risks in context, reduce fear where risks are small (terrorism, shark attacks, flying), and save fear for risks we underweight (smoking, obesity, alcohol, driving). That’s adult moral instruction—probabilities, tradeoffs, and perspective—not alarmism.

Rapid-fire counters for a Prager monologue

• “What’s the base rate?” Then cite the bathtub/0.02% math.

• “Are you selling possibilities or probabilities?” Quote the “any place, any time” critique.

• “Show the crossover point.” One 9/11 per month to make flying as risky as driving.

• “Is this mass destruction or mass disruption?” Dirty bombs ≠ apocalypse.

• “What’s the cost of your prescription?” Point to pork, doom-boom waste, and theater.

Bottom line

If your career is built on keeping people scared, Overblown will eat you alive. It replaces moral grandstanding with math, context, and cost–benefit sanity—and that’s the ethic worth teaching.

Posted in Dennis Prager | Comments Off on ‘If your career is built on keeping people scared, Overblown will eat you alive’