Packers at Vikings (-6½)

Now THIS is a meaningless game, with the Packers locked into the 7 seed and the Vikings locked into playoff absentia. For local fans, this contest won’t be nearly as entertaining to watch as, say, “Minnesota Day Care Center Follies.”
Pick: Vikings by 3

FILE – Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz speaks during a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing, June 12, 2025, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington. (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson, File)

Dolphins at Patriots (-11½)

Former Viking Stefon Diggs is facing felony strangulation charges after an incident involving his personal chef. Patriots officials are expected to keep playing their accused star receiver every bit as long as they kept playing Aaron Hernandez.
Pick: Patriots by 17

FILE – New England Patriots wide receiver Stefon Diggs (8) leaves the field following an NFL football game against the Cincinnati Bengals, Sunday, Nov 23, 2025, in Cincinnati, Ohio. (AP Photo/Peter Joneleit, File)

Ravens at Steelers (+3½)

These two AFC North arch-rivals will close out the regular season playing for a division title. There will be mixed emotions because, as President Trump pointed out, Aaron Rodgers really wants to see the Ravens succeed.
Pick: Ravens by 3

FILE – President Donald Trump, right, shakes the hand of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin during a joint press conference at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, Aug. 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File)

Seahawks at 49ers (+1½)

Seattle’s Sam Darnold is now only the fifth quarterback in NFL history to win 13 games in consecutive seasons. That’s especially pungent for Vikings fans, because there’s no guarantee J.J. McCarthy will ever win 13 games.
Pick: 49ers by 3

Seattle Seahawks quarterback Sam Darnold leaves the field after an NFL football game between the Carolina Panthers and the Seattle Seahawks, Sunday, Dec. 28, 2025, in Charlotte, N.C. AP Photo/Jacob Kupferman)

Cardinals at Rams (-9½)

Arizona coach Jonathan Gannon reportedly believes his job is safe despite the Cardinals’ 3-13 record. The only people more confident that they will not be fired are Pete Hegseth, Kash Patel, Pam Bondi, Kristi Noem and RFK Jr.
Pick: Rams by 17

Arizona Cardinals head coach Jonathan Gannon paces the sideline prior to an NFL football game against the Atlanta Falcons Sunday, Dec. 21, 2025, in Glendale, Ariz. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

Chargers at Broncos (-7½)

Denver’s almost certain to lock up the AFC’s top seed because Los Angeles is resting quarterback Justin Herbert and most other starters. The Chargers care so little about Sunday’s game that Jim Harbaugh hasn’t even bothered to steal any of the Broncos’ signs.
Pick: Broncos by 10

Los Angeles Chargers head coach Jim Harbaugh watches the scoreboard during an NFL football game against the New York Giants on Sunday, Sep. 28, 2025, in East Rutherford, N.J. (AP Photo/Rusty Jones)

Browns at Bengals (-6½)

Cleveland’s Myles Garrett is only one sack away from the NFL record of 21½. Former Vikings QB Brett Favre is said to be a bit verklempt that he’s retired and thus would not be able to take a dive for the Browns star’s record-breaker.
Pick: Bengals by 7

06 Jan 2002: Michael Strahan #92 of the New York Giants pressures quarterback Brett Favre #4 of the Green Bay Packers during the game at Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey. The Packers won 34-25. DIGITAL IMAGE. Mandatory Credit: Ezra Shaw/Getty Images

Titans at Jaguars (-11½)

Jacksonville is going for only its fifth division title in franchise history. The Jags haven’t appeared in the playoffs since 2023. That happens to be, by the way, the last time Trevor Lawrence trimmed his mane.
Pick: Jaguars by 7

Jacksonville Jaguars quarterback Trevor Lawrence (16) warms up on the field before an NFL football game against the Indianapolis Colts, Sunday, Dec. 28, 2025, in Indianapolis. (AP Photo/Zach Bolinger)

Panthers at Buccaneers (-2½)

Tampa Bay is trying to become only the sixth team with a losing record to make the NFL playoffs. Such a feat is not that uncommon in this country because of how often our elections have been won by losers.
Pick: Panthers by 3

Tampa Buccaneers quarterback Baker Mayfield (6) gestures at the line of scrimmage during an NFL football game against the Miami Dolphins, Sunday, Dec. 28, 2025, in Miami Gardens, Fla. (AP Photo/Doug Murray)

Chiefs at Raiders (+5½)

Former Las Vegas assistant Chip Kelly had been hired as the new offensive coordinator at Northwestern. It should be a step up for Kelly, as the Wildcats have a much more professional offense than the Raiders.
Pick: Chiefs by 7

FILE – Philadelphia Eagles head coach Chip Kelly walks the sidelines during the second half of an NFL football game against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Sunday, Nov. 22, 2015, in Philadelphia. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez, File)

OTHER GAMES

Colts at Texans (-10½)
Pick: Texans by 7

Jets at Bills (-8½)
Pick: Bills by 21

Lions at Bears (-2½)
Pick: Bears by 3

Saints at Falcons (-2½)
Pick: Falcons by 3

Commanders at Eagles (-8½)
Pick: Eagles by 11

Cowboys at Giants (+5½)
Pick: Cowboys by 7

Houston Texans quarterback C.J. Stroud (7) runs away from the pressure by Arizona Cardinals linebackers Josh Sweat (10) and Zaven Collins (25) as Texans offensive tackles Trent Brown (77) and Aireontae Ersery (79) make blocks during the second half of an NFL football game Sunday, Dec. 14, 2025, in Houston. (AP Photo/Ashley Landis)

RECORD

Last week
10-6 straight up
7-9 vs. spread

Season
155-100-1 straight up (.608)
123-133 vs. spread (.480)

All-time (2003-25)
3974-2201-15 straight up (.644)
3034-3012-145 vs spread (.502)

You can hear Kevin Cusick on Thursdays on Bob Sansevere’s “BS Show” podcast on iTunes. You can follow Kevin on X– @theloopnow. He can be reached at kcusick@pioneerpress.com.

Related Articles

The Loop Fantasy Football Update Week 17: Last-minute moves

The Loop NFL Picks: Week 17

The Loop Fantasy Football Update Week 16: Last-minute moves

The Loop NFL Picks: Week 16

The Loop Fantasy Football Update Week 15: Last-minute moves

“As far as human nature is concerned, with panic comes irrationality.”

This simple statement by Professor Steve Calandrillo and Nolan Anderson has profound implications for public policy. When panic is highest, and demand for reactive policy is greatest, that’s exactly when we need our lawmakers to resist the temptation to move fast and ban things.

Yet, many state legislators are ignoring this advice amid public outcries about the allegedly widespread and destructive uses of AI. Thankfully, Calandrillo and Anderson have identified a few examples of what I’ll call “panic policies” that make clear that proposals forged by frenzy tend not to reflect good public policy.

Let’s turn first to a proposal in November of 2001 from the American Academy of Pediatrics. For obvious reasons, airline safety was subject to immense public scrutiny at this time. AAP responded with what may sound like a good idea: require all infants to have their own seat and, by extension, their own seat belt on planes. The existing policy permitted parents to simply put their kid — so long as they were under 2 — on their lap. Essentially, babies flew for free.

The Federal Aviation Administration permitted this based on a pretty simple analysis: The risks to young kids without seatbelts on planes were far less than the risks they would face if they were instead traveling by car. Put differently, if parents faced higher prices to travel by air, then they’d turn to the road as the best way to get from A to B. As we all know (perhaps with the exception of the AAP at the time), airline travel is tremendously safer than travel by car.

Nevertheless, the AAP forged ahead with its proposal. In fact, it did so despite admitting that they were unsure of whether the higher risks of mortality of children under 2 in plane crashes were due to the lack of a seat belt or the fact that they’re simply fragile.

A group of pediatricians stepped in to quash the AAP’s unfounded proposal. They reported that “even if the policy led to no increase in car travel and cost only $20 per round trip per young child, the cost per life saved would be about $4.3 million per discounted life-year.”

As difficult as it may be to put a price tag on saving the life of an infant, in a world of scarce legislative attention and sparse resources, policymakers cannot avoid such analysis. Thankfully, the FAA sided with reason, resisted popular pressure, and rejected the AAP’s proposal.

Unfortunately, there’s no guarantee that reason will win out over panic policies. Following a number of tragic school-bus incidents in the 1960s and 1970s, Congress faced mounting calls to insist on heightened safety regulations for school buses. The resulting proposal would have increased the cost of school buses by 25 percent by virtue of shoring up their safety measures. How do you think school districts would have responded?

Stick with the older buses for longer, right? Few school districts have spare funds lying around. Yet, this somewhat obvious response by districts appears to have been lost on the chief proponents of the policy.

The upshot is that policymaking that occurs in the heat of public panic is precisely when we ought to slow down, rely on evidence, and avoid enacting laws that will actually do more harm than good. It is undeniable that extensive use of AI tools has resulted in tragic outcomes for several young Americans.

How best to respond, though, is not as clear-cut as many may have you believe. It’s highly questionable that existing reports about the pros and cons of AI tools are representative of users. It’s also highly probable that proponents of bans are not adequately weighing the fact that there’s a massive shortage of psychiatrists to address the growing need among children and teens for specialized support. This is especially for children in rural and economically-insecure communities.

Finally, and most importantly, it’s nearly certain that by stigmatizing the use of AI, proponents of panic policies may undermine uses of tools that have already shown their effectiveness. Not all AI is created equal. While there may be a case for limiting and even banning certain uses of certain AI tools, such policies should be grounded in evidence, not vibes.

To be clear — as someone who suffered from mental health issues as a child, I am not at all opposed to the motivations of those paying close attention to the misuse of AI. I applaud their devotion and attention to this issue.

However, I’m vehemently opposed to allowing panic to distract us from adhering to good public policy. This is an emotional topic, which often makes it difficult for nuanced conversations, but the well-being of our youth demands that we rise to the occasion — leaning on research, investigation, and deliberation rather than acting on headlines and speculation.

Kevin Frazier is an AI Innovation and Law Fellow at Texas Law and author of the Appleseed AI substack. He wrote this colum for The Fulcrum, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news platform covering efforts to fix our governing systems.

Related Articles

F.D. Flam: Experimenting on dogs is getting harder to defend

Karishma Vaswani: Islamic State isn’t back in Asia, but its ideas endure

Mary Ellen Klas: States are now the check on America’s executive

Allison Schrager: 5 reasons to be optimistic about the 2026 economy

Shuli Ren: Never, ever underestimate China

The unprecedented turmoil at the top U.S. health agencies, under the leadership of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is sure to have a long-term impact on the well-being of Americans. Although Kennedy’s mantra has been to “Make America Healthy Again,” the most visible changes he and his allies have made within the Department of Health and Human Services in 2025 appear, in practice, designed to do the opposite.

The consequences of Kennedy’s first year in office — marked by sweeping cuts in funding and personnel at the agencies under his purview, the erosion of expertise and the mainstreaming of anti-vaccine rhetoric into national policy — will unfold over years or even decades. However, several key metrics could serve as early indicators of how quickly Kennedy’s influence, combined with President Donald Trump’s broader agenda, will shape Americans’ health.

From the spread of preventable diseases to access to both established and emerging drugs and vaccines to health care coverage, here are a few things I’ll be paying attention to in 2026:

Kennedy faced his first significant test within days of his confirmation: a rapidly spreading measles outbreak in West Texas. Unfortunately, he failed the exam. He waffled for weeks, failing to forcefully encourage vaccination, while simultaneously promoting unproven treatments for the virus. Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s deep cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention left local health authorities struggling to contend with the outbreak.

By July, measles cases had reached 1,288, their highest level since the virus was declared eliminated in the U.S. in 2000. By late December, the number of cases had grown to 2,012, of which approximately 87% were associated with an ongoing outbreak. Cases have been reported in several states, and at least three unvaccinated people are reported to have died from the disease.

The situation has continued to deteriorate as we head into 2026, as evidenced by an accelerating outbreak in South Carolina that, by mid-December, had infected more than 135 people and sent hundreds more into quarantine. The question for 2026 seems to be not whether, but when, the U.S. will lose its measles elimination status — and how severe the consequences may become amid future outbreaks.

The measles outbreak was fueled by vulnerabilities in the vaccine safety net that helps keep everyone protected. Eliminated diseases remain eliminated only if enough people — typically around 95% of the population — are immunized. Data indicate that acceptance of routine childhood vaccines is softening, and the share of children entering kindergarten with all their shots has gradually declined over the past five years. During the same period, many more children received non-medical exemptions from required vaccinations.

The question now becomes how Kennedy’s influence over both public opinion and actual policy might amplify those twin trends. Last summer, he overhauled the influential CDC advisory panel that makes recommendations on the use of vaccines nationwide, appointing members who more closely align with his anti-vaccine views. The panel has since restricted the use of certain vaccines, most notably by revoking the longstanding advice that all newborns be vaccinated against hepatitis B. The group is also poised, under Trump’s direction, to review the entire childhood immunization schedule, raising concerns about rollbacks of other established protections.

Meanwhile, lawmakers, emboldened by Kennedy’s actions, have sought to pass laws that make it easier for parents to obtain exemptions that allow their children to forgo routine vaccinations. Kindergarten exemption data for this school year could provide our first indication of whether these efforts have significantly affected parents’ decision-making.

During the Biden administration, the number of uninsured Americans fell to record lows, largely due to the introduction of pandemic-era subsidies that made insurance purchased through the Affordable Care Act more affordable. The looming expiration of those tax credits at the end of this year led to months of congressional gridlock over whether and how to extend them. Democrats advocated extending them, while Republicans debated whether they should be preserved in a more limited form or discarded altogether.

Lawmakers failed to reach a consensus before Congress adjourned for the year. The expiration of the credits means millions of Americans will see their insurance premiums roughly double in January. Negotiations will continue after the holiday break, and if a deal is reached, health policy experts at KFF say the Trump administration could help consumers by making the subsidies retroactive to Jan. 1 and extending the sign-up deadline to allow enrollees to switch to more affordable plans.

The stakes are high: The number of Americans receiving coverage through ACA plans has more than doubled since 2020 to more than 24 million. Without the subsidies, some 4.2 million people are projected to forgo coverage.

Early numbers from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services suggest that fewer new customers are enrolling in ACA plans, but they also indicate a slight increase in returning customers compared with this time in 2024. And, of course, the ultimate unknown is how many Americans will end up uninsured — and how that could affect the nation’s long-term health and strain its infrastructure.

U.S. consumers have long benefited from the country’s leadership in biomedical innovation, a position predicated on a gold-standard regulatory body that carefully evaluates scores of new drugs, vaccines and medical devices each year.

But that typically predictable approval process has been disrupted by turmoil and ever-shifting policies at the Food and Drug Administration. As FDA Commissioner Marty Makary puts existing vaccines and other long-used drugs under new scrutiny, there is reason to worry that the approval thresholds for newer ones could become unreasonably high.

At the same time, Makary is intent on speeding up new drug approvals. He is reportedly planning to reduce the number of late-stage studies required for FDA approval from two to one. He has also introduced a controversial “national priority review voucher,” which promises reviews within weeks for companies that align with Trump’s focus on affordability, domestic manufacturing, and unmet public health needs.

All of this is unfolding at a time of significant churn at the FDA, both at the leadership level and among the career scientists who review new products. The question for next year is whether the flow of new therapies can increase without compromising safety and efficacy — a difficult balance to strike.

These key health measures use real-time data to capture the immediate impact of a transformed HHS. But it is essential to ensure there is a full accounting of the many other areas — including opioid deaths, maternal mortality, and drug prices — that could be affected by the seismic shifts to our nation’s health infrastructure.

Lisa Jarvis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering biotech, health care and the pharmaceutical industry. Previously, she was executive editor of Chemical & Engineering News.

Related Articles

With new variant, flu season picking up. Here’s what to know.

A family is trying to raise millions to test gene therapy that could help kids trapped in bodies they can’t move

US commits $480M in health funding to Ivory Coast, the latest to sign ‘America First’ health deals

MN paid leave applications open early statewide. Here’s how to apply.

SNAP bans on soda, candy and other foods take effect in five states Jan. 1

 

I was one of the researchers in the well-known Stanford prison experiment in 1971, demonstrating the destructive dynamics that are generated when one group of people — randomly assigned as “guards” — is given near total power over a group of “prisoners.”

In six short days, inside a simulated prison environment, authoritarian forms of mistreatment emerged and numerous emotional breakdowns ensued among otherwise psychologically healthy college-student volunteers. In the decades since, I have studied these dynamics in real correctional settings: jails, prisons and immigration detention centers throughout the United States.

Among the things I have learned is that the damaging dynamics unleashed inside such places are not self-correcting. Quite the opposite. Absent transparency and accountability, dehumanization and degradation intensify. Indeed, if left unchecked, the destructive forces that are set in motion almost invariably lead to greater and greater levels of mistreatment.

Because they make up what Justice Anthony Kennedy years ago called a “hidden world of punishment,” what goes on inside these facilities largely escapes public awareness and scrutiny. Many of these sites operate outside the conventional bounds of the rule of law. Lawless institutions in particular do not merely tolerate mistreatment: They engender, normalize and amplify it.

A recent HBO documentary, “The Alabama Solution,” dramatically illustrates many of these forces at work. Based on a six-year investigation and contraband cellphone footage that courageous incarcerated men supplied from inside one of America’s most dangerous and dysfunctional prison systems, filmmakers Andrew Jarecki and Charlotte Kaufman give their audience a gut-wrenching view of something that few outsiders ever see: that hidden world of punishment laid bare, vividly depicting the depth of institutional cruelty and indifference to suffering that characterize many of our nation’s penal facilities.

The Alabama prison system on which the film focuses is one I know well. I was an expert witness in a federal lawsuit in which Judge Myron Thompson found the entire system to be unconstitutional. I spent many days in that role documenting the egregious living conditions inside the state’s prisons and interviewing prisoners about the neglect and mistreatment to which they were subjected. Remarkably, the system was so dangerously out of control that there were a number of days when my scheduled fact-finding missions had to be canceled because, as prison officials told me, they “could not guarantee my safety.” If they could not guarantee the safety of an expert witness with a court order to come inside, we should all wonder whether and how they could guarantee the safety of the 30,000 prisoners under their control. The new documentary provides all too chilling answers to that question.

The film also gives lie to a common stereotype that prisoners cannot be believed about the terrible realities they face in their daily life and regularly exaggerate the suffering and indignities they endure. In my experience, the opposite is true. If anything — perhaps because they do not want to fully relive the trauma or worry that skeptical outsiders will not believe them — they tend to understate what really goes on inside. As viewers of “The Alabama Solution” will see, the brutal reality is actually much worse than most people can imagine. And it is infinitely worse than the rosy accounts from many officials and politicians — who are themselves responsible for creating and maintaining these horrific places.

I wish that I could say that the egregious conditions and shocking treatment depicted in the film were limited to just one prison or prison system. The truth is that, although Alabama may be an outlier in some respects, scenes like those depicted in the film play out all too often in jails, prisons and detention facilities across the country. There are currently nearly 2 million people confined inside the nation’s bloated carceral system, which costs taxpayers more than $180 billion annually to maintain. Yet in far too many of these places — operating away from public view and meaningful legal regulation — callousness, cruelty and mistreatment prevail instead of rehabilitation, programming and treatment. Far too many people emerge from them traumatized by the experience, if they are fortunate enough to emerge at all.

Rather than reforming these institutions and minimizing their reach, federal and state governments are expanding their dehumanizing penal practices beyond the prison walls. We are daily witnessing the metastasizing of an increasingly lawless system of state-sanctioned oppression in society at large, one in which anonymous government actors operate unrestrained by due process safeguards, subjugating and terrorizing people with impunity — as has long been common inside prisons and jails. Only the restoration of transparency and the rule of law can reverse the perilous direction in which our country has been moving and shift the tide back toward justice and humanity.

Craig Haney, a professor of psychology at UC Santa Cruz, is the author of “Criminality in Context: A Psychological Framework for Criminal Justice Reform.” He wrote this column for the Los Angeles Times.

Related Articles

F.D. Flam: Experimenting on dogs is getting harder to defend

Karishma Vaswani: Islamic State isn’t back in Asia, but its ideas endure

Mary Ellen Klas: States are now the check on America’s executive

Allison Schrager: 5 reasons to be optimistic about the 2026 economy

Shuli Ren: Never, ever underestimate China