Another holiday weekend in New Mexico and more repeat DWI offenders kill innocents in traffic accidents. It’s like clockwork with hand-wringing and explorations of the reasons behind these kinds of occurrences and how to punish the offenders on 770 KKOB this morning. Some of the opinions are vague and pointless such as suggesting some kind of undefined and undiscovered magic pharmaceutical to “cure” alcoholics. Other opinions are more of the “throw up the hands in the air” variety, decrying the judicial system and connections that many offenders seem to have and a lack of will from judges to follow strict sentencing guidelines. Others offer police state solutions to include forcing retailers to have breathalyzers to the implantation of chips in people that would monitor their blood-alcohol level and tying that information to the operation of their vehicles. The host, Jim Clark, laid all responsibility on the accused and suggested mandatory life sentences for repeat DWI offenders who commit vehicular homicide, a reasonable opinion and solution. Too much of the conversation from the listeners, however, disassociated responsibility from the perpetrators, blaming others for these horrific actions and offering up so-called solutions that will likely prove ineffective while taking away freedoms from people who are responsible.
Drunk drivers have plagued our society since the advent of the automobile and a solution to the problem has proved elusive. Spreading responsibility, considering servers and alcohol sellers equal in guilt for the actions of adults in not the answer. Of course the clearly inebriated should not be provided more to drink but there is no way for someone to judge a person’s capacity for drinks by sight alone and keep track of every person’s intake simultaneously considered against that capacity. It is also impossible to know if a repeat offender will eventually commit a deadly crime driving in the future and there is no justification to preemptively jail anyone based on the presumption of future crimes as some suggest. It is one thing to install a breathalyzer in a person’s car but another to physically implant something (if such a technique actually existed) in a person.
Giving up isn’t an option. Encouraging responsibility and punishing crimes harshly makes sense. A first time DWI requires sincere reflection and a reconsideration of one’s priorities and situation. A second should require one to consider their consumption of alcohol. While a one-time DWI is a reason for concern, punishment should not destroy a person’s life. A second should include a much stiffer punishment that still allows the perpetrator to re-integrate into society. More occurrences should increase punishment and if a multiple DWI offender should kill someone when they are driving drunk their three strikes should be up. These punishments must be non-negotiable and applied in every case without any other consideration. Starting from grade school, public education must include strict and frequent lessons on personal responsibility and the consequences that can result in its absence. There is no way to eliminate DWI without eliminating automobiles and every possible kind of stimulant. The best that can be done is to ensure that it isn’t a worthwhile path and that people understand and accept their responsibilities.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Thursday, May 26, 2011
A Couple Sporting Thoughts
And the Lakers have a new coach, former Cavaliers coach Mike Brown. What to think? When rumors of Brown’s imminent hiring first began to be passed over ESPN radio during Mike and Mike in the morning and on sports website blurbs I at first hoped that it wasn’t true. Certainly, Brown’s 66.3% winning percentage during five years as coach of the Cavs is a positive but that team’s well known failures in the playoffs had to be considered as well. The difficulty in assessing Brown’s coaching performance comes from the fact that LeBron James was on all five of those Cavs teams and he was let go the same off-season that James left for the Miami Heat. This past season, the Cavs finished with the second worst regular season record in the NBA and there’s no way to determine how much of the difference from last season (42 less wins!) was due to either James’ or Brown’s departure from the team. It can be argued that coaches receive too much credit for good teams and too much blame for poor teams but it’s unreasonable to assume that a coach is simply a bystander and some part of those 42 wins has to be attributed to Mike Brown. Those last several sentences were an illustration of me talking myself into the hire. And as a day has passed I upgraded myself from doubtful to cautiously optimistic. Truth is, I can’t think of anyone who would be appreciably better as Laker’s coach. It’s an unknown. Like many casual observers I would have liked to see Brian Shaw, Laker’s assistant coach, be given a chance but it isn’t my choice and there really isn’t a sure thing and perhaps Brown will be very successful. As a Laker’s fan, I wish him luck and hope he succeeds.
Being contrarian, I often find myself wondering “what’s the big deal” in regard to a lot of things and yesterday I found myself rolling my eyes at both Mike’s “think of the children” concocted consternation over NASCAR driver Kyle Busch driving 128 mph in a 45 mph zone on the Mike and Mike show on ESPN radio. I’m not in favor of Busch’s action but I’m not in the position to pass judgment either. Busch will have a rather large speeding ticket and possibly face other consequences based on wherever he got the ticket. That wherever is what makes me incredulous about the whole thing and unwilling to define Busch as some kind of hate object. I’m fairly certain he wasn’t driving that fast through a school zone or anything like that, as it would have been stated. Details are lacking in the story and unreleased are details in regard to when and where this incident occurred. Mike and Mike went on to label Busch’s driving as unsafe, which I think depends on a lot of unknown (to the public) details and I won’t just call speeding unsafe just because, even when the limit is surpassed by 83 mph. The car he was driving was capable of that speed and he didn’t wreck or hurt anyone else meaning that the road apparently was fit for that speed. Finally, Mike and Mike devolved into the silly, pondering if NASCAR requires driver’s licenses (it doesn’t) and whether or not drivers would have to carry them while racing (they don’t) and if Busch should have his license suspended (that’s up to the jurisdiction he got caught in) and if he did lose his license, if that should influence his career (it shouldn’t). The takeaway, speeding isn’t always unsafe and conclusions are difficult absent details.
Being contrarian, I often find myself wondering “what’s the big deal” in regard to a lot of things and yesterday I found myself rolling my eyes at both Mike’s “think of the children” concocted consternation over NASCAR driver Kyle Busch driving 128 mph in a 45 mph zone on the Mike and Mike show on ESPN radio. I’m not in favor of Busch’s action but I’m not in the position to pass judgment either. Busch will have a rather large speeding ticket and possibly face other consequences based on wherever he got the ticket. That wherever is what makes me incredulous about the whole thing and unwilling to define Busch as some kind of hate object. I’m fairly certain he wasn’t driving that fast through a school zone or anything like that, as it would have been stated. Details are lacking in the story and unreleased are details in regard to when and where this incident occurred. Mike and Mike went on to label Busch’s driving as unsafe, which I think depends on a lot of unknown (to the public) details and I won’t just call speeding unsafe just because, even when the limit is surpassed by 83 mph. The car he was driving was capable of that speed and he didn’t wreck or hurt anyone else meaning that the road apparently was fit for that speed. Finally, Mike and Mike devolved into the silly, pondering if NASCAR requires driver’s licenses (it doesn’t) and whether or not drivers would have to carry them while racing (they don’t) and if Busch should have his license suspended (that’s up to the jurisdiction he got caught in) and if he did lose his license, if that should influence his career (it shouldn’t). The takeaway, speeding isn’t always unsafe and conclusions are difficult absent details.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Can a Boring Person be President?
I wonder sometimes with the way politics is covered if one day the election of a US President will be done through an American Idol type reality show. While “exploring” a run as a Republican, free-trade opponent and publicity addict Donald Trump was leading in a poll of possible Republican voters. Trump even received qualified support from Rush Limbaugh because Rush was in favor of the Trump’s methods of “taking it to President Obama”. One lesson that should be learned from Trump’s “exploration” is that we, as a country and as members of the GOP, deserve better. And what I wonder is, can a boring person be elected President and I wish the answer to be yes.
The current boring candidate is Tim Pawlenty with Mitch Daniels a potential boring candidate. Plausible candidate Sarah Palin would be considered a boring candidate if she wasn’t a she, who has been turned into an unfortunate caricature by bad actors. There are arguments for other candidates being boring, but to me the frontrunners are Pawlenty and Daniels. Neither is completely ideal but that’s because no one knows how they would actually perform as President, and that experience is the only way to truly judge a President, by their actions in that office. Both have extensive gubernatorial experience with good conservative records and are impressive in their respective abilities to complete sentences without being sensational.
But, can a President be boring? I blame Bill Clinton for conditioning the conventional wisdom that the President must have some interesting “storyline” in order to be elected. The man from Hope, whatever that meant. Obama continued with dreams from his father, whatever those were. George W. Bush was able to use his victory over drinking and Christian conversion as interesting themes. American Idol can be entertaining but a Presidential election shouldn’t devolve into something akin to a High School class election. It’s not a popularity contest. It’s about who has the best ideas and the demeanor best suited for representing the United States of America. We don’t have that right now and I think the best path is boring.
The current boring candidate is Tim Pawlenty with Mitch Daniels a potential boring candidate. Plausible candidate Sarah Palin would be considered a boring candidate if she wasn’t a she, who has been turned into an unfortunate caricature by bad actors. There are arguments for other candidates being boring, but to me the frontrunners are Pawlenty and Daniels. Neither is completely ideal but that’s because no one knows how they would actually perform as President, and that experience is the only way to truly judge a President, by their actions in that office. Both have extensive gubernatorial experience with good conservative records and are impressive in their respective abilities to complete sentences without being sensational.
But, can a President be boring? I blame Bill Clinton for conditioning the conventional wisdom that the President must have some interesting “storyline” in order to be elected. The man from Hope, whatever that meant. Obama continued with dreams from his father, whatever those were. George W. Bush was able to use his victory over drinking and Christian conversion as interesting themes. American Idol can be entertaining but a Presidential election shouldn’t devolve into something akin to a High School class election. It’s not a popularity contest. It’s about who has the best ideas and the demeanor best suited for representing the United States of America. We don’t have that right now and I think the best path is boring.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
The Responsible Bicycle Commuter
Last week there was a local news report concerning supposedly inadequate bike lanes on Rio Grande Boulevard. The lanes were identified as inadequate based on a federal standard for width from sidewalk to road and identified as a danger when combined with reckless speeding drivers. The lane was measured in one place on Rio Grande and pushed as an example of other, unspecified, problem areas about the city of Albuquerque.
Perhaps because of the time constraints inherent in a half-hour local news program, there was much left out of the report. Implicit in the comparison to the federal standard was the idea that Rio Grande is out of compliance in some illicit way but never mentioned was whether or not the standard was binding or just some kind of guideline. Also missing was information regarding whether or not Rio Grande Blvd is required to adhere to the standard, when that portion of bike lane was constructed and if that construction date predates the standard.
Most troublesome in this story was the complete ignorance of the bicycle rider as having any responsibility whatsoever. As a bicycle commuter myself I find myself disappointed because almost every news story in regard to the subject ignores the culpability of the rider. It could be argued that in this case, this story, it was not at all about the rider, just a too-small lane on a traffic heavy road. There’s a point there, just not a very strong one.
As a bicycle commuter, one must always be aware of their surroundings and consider every motorist as a menace to their very existence. If they feel that the lane on Rio Grande is too small and that traffic conditions make riding on it unsafe they should pick another road. The Bosque trail for example is less than half a mile west of Rio Grande and runs parallel to it. Looking at Google maps, there are multiple residential surface streets that run nearly parallel to Rio Grande, a careful rider could easily plan a route that takes them through quiet, low traffic neighborhoods.
Not all drivers are careless but an experienced commuter must assume that every car is a second away from careening towards them uncontrolled. Many motorists do not use turn signals and with experience bicycle commuters can make informed judgments in regard to directional intent but those judgments can be wrong, motorists can change direction suddenly and very often don’t look for bicycles (the oft-quoted line that bicycles are hard to see is tripe) so the rider must always assume the worst. It’s the only way to always be sure.
Maybe the news story was meant as an appeal to officials to improve conditions for the cyclist, which is always welcome but not always practical. That intent, as beneficial as purported to be, doesn’t really help anyone. Truth is there are some roads in Albuquerque that are impractical for bicycle commuting regardless of the size of their bike lanes. Take for example Academy Road, between Wyoming and San Mateo Boulevards. Large bike lanes were recently added to Academy to welcome commuters but it’s still dangerous because the posted speed limit is 45 MPH and many drivers exceed it. Cyclists are much better off traveling down Burlison, Harper or even Osuna Road instead where the traffic is lighter and slower.
It’s not desired to find myself at odds with the bicycle commuting community; I find it necessary to bring this different perspective because it isn’t a black and white issue. Bicyclists can be irritating and careless on the roads as well. Pretending that bicycle commuters are pure as the wind driven snow ignores reality and emboldens irresponsibility, not to mention that it can’t help motorist-cyclist relations. If it’s practical to widen the bike lane on Rio Grande, perhaps it should be done but it should take more than a sanctimonious reporter with a tape measure lecturing us to make it so.
Perhaps because of the time constraints inherent in a half-hour local news program, there was much left out of the report. Implicit in the comparison to the federal standard was the idea that Rio Grande is out of compliance in some illicit way but never mentioned was whether or not the standard was binding or just some kind of guideline. Also missing was information regarding whether or not Rio Grande Blvd is required to adhere to the standard, when that portion of bike lane was constructed and if that construction date predates the standard.
Most troublesome in this story was the complete ignorance of the bicycle rider as having any responsibility whatsoever. As a bicycle commuter myself I find myself disappointed because almost every news story in regard to the subject ignores the culpability of the rider. It could be argued that in this case, this story, it was not at all about the rider, just a too-small lane on a traffic heavy road. There’s a point there, just not a very strong one.
As a bicycle commuter, one must always be aware of their surroundings and consider every motorist as a menace to their very existence. If they feel that the lane on Rio Grande is too small and that traffic conditions make riding on it unsafe they should pick another road. The Bosque trail for example is less than half a mile west of Rio Grande and runs parallel to it. Looking at Google maps, there are multiple residential surface streets that run nearly parallel to Rio Grande, a careful rider could easily plan a route that takes them through quiet, low traffic neighborhoods.
Not all drivers are careless but an experienced commuter must assume that every car is a second away from careening towards them uncontrolled. Many motorists do not use turn signals and with experience bicycle commuters can make informed judgments in regard to directional intent but those judgments can be wrong, motorists can change direction suddenly and very often don’t look for bicycles (the oft-quoted line that bicycles are hard to see is tripe) so the rider must always assume the worst. It’s the only way to always be sure.
Maybe the news story was meant as an appeal to officials to improve conditions for the cyclist, which is always welcome but not always practical. That intent, as beneficial as purported to be, doesn’t really help anyone. Truth is there are some roads in Albuquerque that are impractical for bicycle commuting regardless of the size of their bike lanes. Take for example Academy Road, between Wyoming and San Mateo Boulevards. Large bike lanes were recently added to Academy to welcome commuters but it’s still dangerous because the posted speed limit is 45 MPH and many drivers exceed it. Cyclists are much better off traveling down Burlison, Harper or even Osuna Road instead where the traffic is lighter and slower.
It’s not desired to find myself at odds with the bicycle commuting community; I find it necessary to bring this different perspective because it isn’t a black and white issue. Bicyclists can be irritating and careless on the roads as well. Pretending that bicycle commuters are pure as the wind driven snow ignores reality and emboldens irresponsibility, not to mention that it can’t help motorist-cyclist relations. If it’s practical to widen the bike lane on Rio Grande, perhaps it should be done but it should take more than a sanctimonious reporter with a tape measure lecturing us to make it so.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Random Thoughts - 5/17
And Trump is out, but was he even in? Following reports based on statements from NBC executives that were telling anyone who would listen that if Donald Trump ran for president, his television show The Apprentice would continue with a different blowhard at the helm the Donald dropped his exploration of a discussion of a presidential campaign. Fortuitous news, as the only usefulness of a Trump campaign would be for democrats. Good riddance, even though he was never even actually a candidate.
And Newt Gingrich, with his ever expanding explanations about his agreements and disagreements with House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget apparently in an attempt to who knows what, has seemingly taken himself out of contention. Newt is often billed as an intellectual and as with others labeled similarly, drowned himself in words attempting to sound intelligent while finding a way to alienate everyone who might actually vote for him.
NFL owners were granted a permanent stay in regard to the supposedly un-appealable judgment against the lock-out. If you find yourself disappointed, that’s understandable as it means that there is still no football. If you find yourself surprised, you should learn more about the law. It ain’t pleasant but the NFL lockout is about a dispute between an employer and a union representing its employees. A clever union PR campaign influencing a federal judge can’t just make up rules.
So, what to think about the latest pay-to-play allegations regarding former governor Bill Richardson? It’s early and time will tell if they stick. No one can be surprised as life-long politicians such as Richardson often act in ways that demonstrate a casual disregard for the law. It also demonstrates that New Mexico Attorney General Gary King is simply a democrat hack who will ignore serious allegations so long as the accused is of similar persuasion. This being New Mexico, King could probably still win re-election tomorrow. Sigh.
And Newt Gingrich, with his ever expanding explanations about his agreements and disagreements with House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget apparently in an attempt to who knows what, has seemingly taken himself out of contention. Newt is often billed as an intellectual and as with others labeled similarly, drowned himself in words attempting to sound intelligent while finding a way to alienate everyone who might actually vote for him.
NFL owners were granted a permanent stay in regard to the supposedly un-appealable judgment against the lock-out. If you find yourself disappointed, that’s understandable as it means that there is still no football. If you find yourself surprised, you should learn more about the law. It ain’t pleasant but the NFL lockout is about a dispute between an employer and a union representing its employees. A clever union PR campaign influencing a federal judge can’t just make up rules.
So, what to think about the latest pay-to-play allegations regarding former governor Bill Richardson? It’s early and time will tell if they stick. No one can be surprised as life-long politicians such as Richardson often act in ways that demonstrate a casual disregard for the law. It also demonstrates that New Mexico Attorney General Gary King is simply a democrat hack who will ignore serious allegations so long as the accused is of similar persuasion. This being New Mexico, King could probably still win re-election tomorrow. Sigh.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Rush v. Mitch Daniels
With President Obama taking breaks from golf to campaign for re-election, it’s about time that Republicans get moving along in figuring out who could be president following the 2012 elections. There was already a debate between several candidates recently including our former governor, Gary Johnson. Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul have announced candidacies this week and Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels is scheduled to announce one way or another by the end of the month.
In anticipation of a possible Daniels run, Rush Limbaugh has apparently taken it on himself to dissuade his listeners (to include your humble writer) from supporting him. This opposition hinges on two basic themes. The first is Daniels’ current trepidation on matters regarding foreign policy and social issues. The second is that there are reports that the Obama campaign team fears a Daniels run and a Washington Post writer’s favorable opinion of a Daniels run as it would presumptively improve candidate Obama, improving a re-elected President Obama.
Rush’s belief is that the hyping of Daniels by liberal scribes and the Obama 2012 crew is really a message that they believe a candidate Daniels will de-facto result in a re-elected President Obama. But by similar logic it could just as well be assumed that the dems are hyping Daniels to psyche-out and discourage potential supporters. Or maybe even, they’re telling the truth. Just kidding. But seriously, who cares? By this train of thought, Mitt Romney is unbeatable because Obama compliments his healthcare plan from when he was governor of Massachusetts.
The bottom line is that Mitch Daniels has an exemplary record as governor of Indiana. After a ridiculous 2008 winning presidential campaign based on the inscrutable message of hope and change its long past time that a candidate emerge with the message of experience and concrete planning. I don’t know if Daniels is the best candidate but I do think that his inclusion in the field is a plus. Why limit the field based on mind games that are as likely imaginary as they are real? He has his reasons but I can’t understand why Rush has such a big problem with Daniels, especially when Limbaugh provides a platform for Donald Trump, a make-believe candidate who is the embodiment of the boogeyman Republican as illustrated by the president and the real best chance for his re-election.
In anticipation of a possible Daniels run, Rush Limbaugh has apparently taken it on himself to dissuade his listeners (to include your humble writer) from supporting him. This opposition hinges on two basic themes. The first is Daniels’ current trepidation on matters regarding foreign policy and social issues. The second is that there are reports that the Obama campaign team fears a Daniels run and a Washington Post writer’s favorable opinion of a Daniels run as it would presumptively improve candidate Obama, improving a re-elected President Obama.
Rush’s belief is that the hyping of Daniels by liberal scribes and the Obama 2012 crew is really a message that they believe a candidate Daniels will de-facto result in a re-elected President Obama. But by similar logic it could just as well be assumed that the dems are hyping Daniels to psyche-out and discourage potential supporters. Or maybe even, they’re telling the truth. Just kidding. But seriously, who cares? By this train of thought, Mitt Romney is unbeatable because Obama compliments his healthcare plan from when he was governor of Massachusetts.
The bottom line is that Mitch Daniels has an exemplary record as governor of Indiana. After a ridiculous 2008 winning presidential campaign based on the inscrutable message of hope and change its long past time that a candidate emerge with the message of experience and concrete planning. I don’t know if Daniels is the best candidate but I do think that his inclusion in the field is a plus. Why limit the field based on mind games that are as likely imaginary as they are real? He has his reasons but I can’t understand why Rush has such a big problem with Daniels, especially when Limbaugh provides a platform for Donald Trump, a make-believe candidate who is the embodiment of the boogeyman Republican as illustrated by the president and the real best chance for his re-election.
The Novelty of Wonder
This morning on 770 KKOB the discussion centered on New Mexico’s spaceport, located in the southern part of our state. My unwavering opinion is and will remain that it is a wasteful endeavor that very likely will never even lead to anything tangible. And even if commercial spaceflight is ever a reality from the spaceport it will have been wasteful for so many years into the future to the taxpayer and so costly that too few will even be able to experience it.
One of the last callers on the topic brought up the wonder of it all and his grandson’s desire to one day travel to space which, with the retirement of the space shuttle and Obama’s direction for NASA, seems less likely for tomorrow’s aspiring astronauts. That wonder and aspirations that come from it is a powerful thing and in that sense the spaceport can be a positive, providing that wonder that is unattended by NASA’s departure.
When I was young I wanted very much to attend space camp and one of my first career aspirations was to be an astronomer. Interest in space and the work that NASA once did was definitely something that inspired me and my eventual choice of engineering as a career. As the years have gone by my interest in space waned and my view of NASA dimmed. As the father of a young child I want him to have that same sense of inspiration. With NASA diminished though, the spaceport becomes a possibility.
But is it worth the costs to our taxpayers? Governor Martinez’s attempts to find more private partners for the effort is the right path and the best chance for the spaceport’s, and New Mexico’s future.
One of the last callers on the topic brought up the wonder of it all and his grandson’s desire to one day travel to space which, with the retirement of the space shuttle and Obama’s direction for NASA, seems less likely for tomorrow’s aspiring astronauts. That wonder and aspirations that come from it is a powerful thing and in that sense the spaceport can be a positive, providing that wonder that is unattended by NASA’s departure.
When I was young I wanted very much to attend space camp and one of my first career aspirations was to be an astronomer. Interest in space and the work that NASA once did was definitely something that inspired me and my eventual choice of engineering as a career. As the years have gone by my interest in space waned and my view of NASA dimmed. As the father of a young child I want him to have that same sense of inspiration. With NASA diminished though, the spaceport becomes a possibility.
But is it worth the costs to our taxpayers? Governor Martinez’s attempts to find more private partners for the effort is the right path and the best chance for the spaceport’s, and New Mexico’s future.
Monday, May 09, 2011
And the Lakers' Season Ends
The Lakers did not deserve to win any more games in this latest NBA season and the Dallas Mavericks were the better team and deserve to be in the NBA western conference finals. I wonder somewhat if Phil Jackson will rethink his planned retirement from coaching with such an ugly exit from a playoff series. For all the reasons being mentioned, the bottom line is that they were simply not good enough this time. The Lakers did not play well, they did not defend well and certain players clearly buckled under pressure and acted in ways that are completely inappropriate.
Ron Artest, there wasn’t much surprise there. As for Andrew Bynum, he is clearly immature and his strange interview in which he spoke of team trust issues as though he was on Oprah’s couch could have been foreboding of the ridiculous foul that he committed yesterday. As for all those that want to label Bynum as some sort of criminal for his action, the player he fouled was unharmed. Pushing what-ifs calling the foul possibly career-ending is hysterical know-nothing conjecture and irresponsible. Bynum has harmed his reputation in an unmistakable way that may negatively affect his future. There is no doubt that he has hurt the Lakers as his trade value will be severely diminished throughout the off-season. What he did was uncalled for, it was a cheap shot, and he will face consequences, playing make-believe and making fantastic claims is not needed.
It’s always tough to see one’s favorite team lose in the playoffs, but at least they were there and the Lakers have been so successful over my lifetime that it would be greedy to expect even more. Kobe Bryant, he of so-called old knees and becoming an elder statesman in the NBA may see his window for championships closing; it’s difficult to empathize with that. I can think of having poor job security but there is always another job, so long as you’re willing to work. But there is no championship in the real world so the only way I can compare with Kobe is the fact that I’m four months younger and my knees need ice after playing basketball too.
As for the Lakers as a team, this loss may lead to many changes. Phil Jackson is planning to retire. I think he may re-think it, but maybe not. Behavior and tensions in the series illustrate rather acutely that there likely will be roster changes. On to next year.
Ron Artest, there wasn’t much surprise there. As for Andrew Bynum, he is clearly immature and his strange interview in which he spoke of team trust issues as though he was on Oprah’s couch could have been foreboding of the ridiculous foul that he committed yesterday. As for all those that want to label Bynum as some sort of criminal for his action, the player he fouled was unharmed. Pushing what-ifs calling the foul possibly career-ending is hysterical know-nothing conjecture and irresponsible. Bynum has harmed his reputation in an unmistakable way that may negatively affect his future. There is no doubt that he has hurt the Lakers as his trade value will be severely diminished throughout the off-season. What he did was uncalled for, it was a cheap shot, and he will face consequences, playing make-believe and making fantastic claims is not needed.
It’s always tough to see one’s favorite team lose in the playoffs, but at least they were there and the Lakers have been so successful over my lifetime that it would be greedy to expect even more. Kobe Bryant, he of so-called old knees and becoming an elder statesman in the NBA may see his window for championships closing; it’s difficult to empathize with that. I can think of having poor job security but there is always another job, so long as you’re willing to work. But there is no championship in the real world so the only way I can compare with Kobe is the fact that I’m four months younger and my knees need ice after playing basketball too.
As for the Lakers as a team, this loss may lead to many changes. Phil Jackson is planning to retire. I think he may re-think it, but maybe not. Behavior and tensions in the series illustrate rather acutely that there likely will be roster changes. On to next year.
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
Justice Done
Justice done is my opinion of the killing of Osama Bin Laden. No, I don’t celebrate his killing but I also will not wish any better on a monster that got less than he deserved in his end. I don’t begrudge those who do celebrate Bin Laden’s taking on sea-temperature and roll my eyes at those who climb up on soapboxes to proclaim that they are above it all because they refuse to celebrate Bin Laden’s death. I don’t care if they don’t, it’s a perfectly valid reaction but best held in private, the need to announce such thoughts belies a certain conceit.
I think that it is a mistake for the administration to not release photos and it was silly how long it took for them to make a decision. Speculation regarding backlash are impossible to predict one way or another and is a weak excuse. I am puzzled by the administration’s ever-changing story in regard to what happened. I don’t believe that Bin Laden pursued a firefight. He was an elderly man who had been on dialysis for many years, and anyone who is on it is typically very weak. The changing story is a political liability as it seems as though the administration is hiding something, even though it probably isn’t.
Like the President in his announcement I am using the word ‘I’ a lot in this post and the reason is that these are my opinions and mine alone. This subject like many others will illicit any number of reactions and opinions because depending on individual sensibilities it can be viewed in different ways. I think my opinion is more reasonable than NFL running back Rashard Mendenhall’s but the fact that Mendenhall seems to think that Bin Laden didn’t deserve what he got proves my point, however distastefully.
A particularly sophomoric posture is to claim a wide ranging and specific belief to be collectively “ours”, as in held by everyone in this country. I find the President has a grating tic in his incessant use of the term “our values” when referring to a personal belief. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and justice for all, national defense and freedom of expression are examples of collective beliefs that are easy to espouse because they are simple. Statements about hyper-specific notions of justice and individual welfare programs as being “our” values are absurd.
I think that it is a mistake for the administration to not release photos and it was silly how long it took for them to make a decision. Speculation regarding backlash are impossible to predict one way or another and is a weak excuse. I am puzzled by the administration’s ever-changing story in regard to what happened. I don’t believe that Bin Laden pursued a firefight. He was an elderly man who had been on dialysis for many years, and anyone who is on it is typically very weak. The changing story is a political liability as it seems as though the administration is hiding something, even though it probably isn’t.
Like the President in his announcement I am using the word ‘I’ a lot in this post and the reason is that these are my opinions and mine alone. This subject like many others will illicit any number of reactions and opinions because depending on individual sensibilities it can be viewed in different ways. I think my opinion is more reasonable than NFL running back Rashard Mendenhall’s but the fact that Mendenhall seems to think that Bin Laden didn’t deserve what he got proves my point, however distastefully.
A particularly sophomoric posture is to claim a wide ranging and specific belief to be collectively “ours”, as in held by everyone in this country. I find the President has a grating tic in his incessant use of the term “our values” when referring to a personal belief. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and justice for all, national defense and freedom of expression are examples of collective beliefs that are easy to espouse because they are simple. Statements about hyper-specific notions of justice and individual welfare programs as being “our” values are absurd.
Monday, May 02, 2011
The dem’s Trump card
Donald Trump is a democrat plant. Well, probably not, most likely he’s just an egomaniacal narcissist (unfortunately not harmless) but what he is not is a serious candidate for the Republican nomination for president in 2012. And it seems plausible from his behavior that he is more democrat plant than “conservative”. What am I talking about? Think about it, could there be a better opponent, from the standpoint of President Obama, than Donald Trump?
Democrat campaign contributions can be explained. Trump does business in big cities, many of which are ruled by democrats in perpetuity, so contributing to Rahm Emanuel in Chicago was just ensuring his continued ability to operate in that city without much trouble. Changes in belief, especially on social issues, can be explained. It happens sometimes, one’s views on certain things seem to change for some people and if Trump’s moving in the right direction, all the better.
What can’t be explained is idiotic foreign policy related stances. Other than making gestures in an attempt to assure anyone who will listen that he’s a conservative, Trump’s candidacy rests on two planks, creating a tariff on imported Chinese goods (which will lead to a trade war) and commandeering the resources of Iraq for liberating the country from Saddam Hussein. Trump doesn’t care how much household goods cost and doesn’t understand that a tariff will cause prices to skyrocket, negating any new jobs created by killing demand for products bought with disposable income because higher costs for inelastic products (the kinds of things that are cheap thanks to importation) means that there is nothing left for iPads, eating out and doing things other than sit around. And if Trump thinks that any president could simply commandeer the resources of any other country as some kind of conqueror, well he doesn’t understand why we were there in the first place.
A couple nights ago, Trump found himself in the front row of the press correspondent’s dinner in DC taking jabs from the President and a comedian who is the head writer at Saturday Night Live, which is on the same network as Trump’s reality show. Trump complained afterward but it didn’t mean anything. I can understand that he’s so self-indulgent as to think he is universally adored but could he really think that the President and a well-known flack would let him escape their barbs in a comedy show after Trump’s outrageous statements as of late?
Trump’s ideas are not conservative. If anything his protectionist leanings are more in line with what many democrats profess. If he were to be the Republican nominee he would lose in a landslide because he is a clown. His behavior alone and his ability to create easy strawmen for the President, going so far as to even make himself present for a two-minute hate session at the correspondent’s dinner indicate that Trump only helps the President’s chances for reelection making it imperative that he be ignored because it’s the only way that he’ll go away.
Democrat campaign contributions can be explained. Trump does business in big cities, many of which are ruled by democrats in perpetuity, so contributing to Rahm Emanuel in Chicago was just ensuring his continued ability to operate in that city without much trouble. Changes in belief, especially on social issues, can be explained. It happens sometimes, one’s views on certain things seem to change for some people and if Trump’s moving in the right direction, all the better.
What can’t be explained is idiotic foreign policy related stances. Other than making gestures in an attempt to assure anyone who will listen that he’s a conservative, Trump’s candidacy rests on two planks, creating a tariff on imported Chinese goods (which will lead to a trade war) and commandeering the resources of Iraq for liberating the country from Saddam Hussein. Trump doesn’t care how much household goods cost and doesn’t understand that a tariff will cause prices to skyrocket, negating any new jobs created by killing demand for products bought with disposable income because higher costs for inelastic products (the kinds of things that are cheap thanks to importation) means that there is nothing left for iPads, eating out and doing things other than sit around. And if Trump thinks that any president could simply commandeer the resources of any other country as some kind of conqueror, well he doesn’t understand why we were there in the first place.
A couple nights ago, Trump found himself in the front row of the press correspondent’s dinner in DC taking jabs from the President and a comedian who is the head writer at Saturday Night Live, which is on the same network as Trump’s reality show. Trump complained afterward but it didn’t mean anything. I can understand that he’s so self-indulgent as to think he is universally adored but could he really think that the President and a well-known flack would let him escape their barbs in a comedy show after Trump’s outrageous statements as of late?
Trump’s ideas are not conservative. If anything his protectionist leanings are more in line with what many democrats profess. If he were to be the Republican nominee he would lose in a landslide because he is a clown. His behavior alone and his ability to create easy strawmen for the President, going so far as to even make himself present for a two-minute hate session at the correspondent’s dinner indicate that Trump only helps the President’s chances for reelection making it imperative that he be ignored because it’s the only way that he’ll go away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)