Once in a blue moon I'll write something sports related... sue me. :)
This Sunday at Homestead-Miami Speedway, Jimmie Johnson will win his third straight Nascar championship. The sports media are drooling over themselves with all the talk of doing what no driver has done since Cale Yarborough: Winning 3 straight titles. Yes, it's been 30 years since that's been done... but under NASCAR's demeaning 'Chase for the Championship,' can we really compare what's happening now to what happened 30 years ago?
Not hardly.
NASCAR implemented the 'CFTC' to spice things up and make the end of the season exciting so it could compete with televised NFL games. In its first year (2004), the championship came down to 3 drivers and was decided by what happened on the last lap of the last race. It was the closest of margins in NASCAR history. Only eight points separated winner Kurt Busch from Jimmie Johnson.
The 'Chase' was considered a success.
But since then? It's been anything but.
Sure, once the Chase starts, it looks interesting. For about 2 weeks. After 3 races in, it's quite clear as to who is going to contend who isn't. It becomes another yawner, especially since ONE team (#48) has won 3 of the last 5 Chases! It's not exciting when someone is winning the thing 60% of the time.
Right now we have the press going nuts over Johnson's 3 straight titles. That's it. Had there NOT ever been a Chase, then what?
In 2004, Jeff Gordon would have won his FIFTH NASCAR championship. The media would be talking about tying Petty and Earnhardt's seven titles.
In 2005, Tony Stewart wins his second championship with 5,199 points. Greg Biffle comes home second, more than two hundred points back.
2006: The year that wasn't. Jimmie Johnson wins his first championship by FOUR POINTS over Matt Kenseth. Talk about being on the edge of your seat at the last race!
2007: Jeff Gordon returns, winning his SIXTH title and second in 4 years. Totaling 6 wins and 5,455 points, it isn't even close as teammate Jimmie Johnson comes home second in the standings, 353 points back.
Imagine the drama of the closest championship in history (4 point margin) and a driver within arm's length of tying Petty and Earnhardt's record 7 championships. Now that's excitement!
Instead, we have a 'Chase' that has offered only one year of excitement.
Woopty-doo....
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
More Laws = More Criminals
Last Tuesday night (10/21) outgoing Huntsville city councilman Glenn Watson proposed a new ordinance that would punish those who operate a cell phone or other electronic device (iPod, GPS) while driving. (Article here)
Just what we need. More petty laws. (note sarcasm)
Violators would face a $100 fine or up to 10 days in jail for the first offense. A third offense can put you in jail for up to three months!
Would we really all be better off by having more people in jail for victimless crimes? If I'm on my phone while driving, there's no victim. If I hit someone, that's different. There's a victim because of my actions.
Enforcement of the proposed law would be a nightmare. Cops could pull over anybody just because they thought someone was using a cell phone. Will I be pulled over if I even pick up and look at my cell phone? If I have to call 9-1-1 while driving will I be cited? It would be easier to pay a fine rather than fight it out in court! Of course, that may be the whole plan.
Watson said the next morning that if this measure saves just one life it will be worth it. But wouldn't it be better to save ALL LIVES by just dropping the speed limits in the city to 5 or 10mph?
'No one would accept speed limits that low! We have places to be!'
I agree. The reality is that we're willing to put more lives at risk (in the name of higher speed limits) in exchange for convenience (our time).
Recently Glenn Watson ran for a seat on the Madison County Commission... and lost. With his departure from the city council as well, we're all better off with one less politician introducing laws that turn law abiding citizens into criminals.
Just what we need. More petty laws. (note sarcasm)
Violators would face a $100 fine or up to 10 days in jail for the first offense. A third offense can put you in jail for up to three months!
Would we really all be better off by having more people in jail for victimless crimes? If I'm on my phone while driving, there's no victim. If I hit someone, that's different. There's a victim because of my actions.
Enforcement of the proposed law would be a nightmare. Cops could pull over anybody just because they thought someone was using a cell phone. Will I be pulled over if I even pick up and look at my cell phone? If I have to call 9-1-1 while driving will I be cited? It would be easier to pay a fine rather than fight it out in court! Of course, that may be the whole plan.
Watson said the next morning that if this measure saves just one life it will be worth it. But wouldn't it be better to save ALL LIVES by just dropping the speed limits in the city to 5 or 10mph?
'No one would accept speed limits that low! We have places to be!'
I agree. The reality is that we're willing to put more lives at risk (in the name of higher speed limits) in exchange for convenience (our time).
Recently Glenn Watson ran for a seat on the Madison County Commission... and lost. With his departure from the city council as well, we're all better off with one less politician introducing laws that turn law abiding citizens into criminals.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Getting What We Ask For
In a recent conversation about politics with Mom, she expressed how she feels (and I'm sure how other of millions of Americans feel) about the state of affairs with the folks in D.C. and the upcoming presidential election.
Paraphrasing a 10 minute conversation into one sentence: 'All politicians are crooks, aren't worth spit and need to be voted out.'
I'm fairly certain that she isn't the only one who feels that way. In fact, if you asked a million voters if they agreed with that above statement, I think you'd get 85% in agreement.
So why do the same yahoos keep getting elected? Is it because the public feels the 'other guys' don't stand a chance?
Here's my theory on what it takes to get elected to higher level public office (in order of importance):
1) First and foremost, the candidate must either be a Republican or Democrat. If the person doesn't have an 'R' or a 'D' by their name, they can hang it up. The public is so hung up on those two parties, that anybody else is considered 'fringe' (especially by the press) and can't be taken seriously. It's a two-horse race & it's a crying shame.
2) The candidate must be fit & attractive. Newsflash: Ugly people don't get elected. If the individual can't make the cover of GQ, he won't get the votes. Views and positions on the important matters don't amount to a hill of beans yet. Oh sure... you say you'd vote for someone based on their qualifications and whatnot, but that's a lie you're telling yourself so you can sleep at night. Can you imagine if FDR were around today running for office? A guy in a wheelchair?! 'What would that say to the leaders of other countries if our president couldn't walk? We'd be attacked!' Sad but true.
3) The candidate must be a decent public speaker. You're allowed to stumble on occassion and flub a word or 3 here and there, but you must be able to win the crowd with a mic in hand. If you can't, you're doomed.
These are my opinions of course... but like with most everything else on my blog... I'm right.
Sadly, what we want and say we want are very different. We get exactly what we ask for.
Paraphrasing a 10 minute conversation into one sentence: 'All politicians are crooks, aren't worth spit and need to be voted out.'
I'm fairly certain that she isn't the only one who feels that way. In fact, if you asked a million voters if they agreed with that above statement, I think you'd get 85% in agreement.
So why do the same yahoos keep getting elected? Is it because the public feels the 'other guys' don't stand a chance?
Here's my theory on what it takes to get elected to higher level public office (in order of importance):
1) First and foremost, the candidate must either be a Republican or Democrat. If the person doesn't have an 'R' or a 'D' by their name, they can hang it up. The public is so hung up on those two parties, that anybody else is considered 'fringe' (especially by the press) and can't be taken seriously. It's a two-horse race & it's a crying shame.
2) The candidate must be fit & attractive. Newsflash: Ugly people don't get elected. If the individual can't make the cover of GQ, he won't get the votes. Views and positions on the important matters don't amount to a hill of beans yet. Oh sure... you say you'd vote for someone based on their qualifications and whatnot, but that's a lie you're telling yourself so you can sleep at night. Can you imagine if FDR were around today running for office? A guy in a wheelchair?! 'What would that say to the leaders of other countries if our president couldn't walk? We'd be attacked!' Sad but true.
3) The candidate must be a decent public speaker. You're allowed to stumble on occassion and flub a word or 3 here and there, but you must be able to win the crowd with a mic in hand. If you can't, you're doomed.
These are my opinions of course... but like with most everything else on my blog... I'm right.
Sadly, what we want and say we want are very different. We get exactly what we ask for.
Friday, September 12, 2008
So now they're 'gouging' us?
As of this writing, Hurricane Ike is scheduled to hit Texas in about 2-4 hours. It seems everyone is in a panic thinking gasoline will soon become a scarce commodity. Thousands of people everywhere are lining up at the pumps trying to get in every bit of gas they can.
But their actions come at a price.
Newton's third law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Greater demand of an item vs. limited supply of that item means the price of said item rises.
Prices in this area have spiked from around 3.45 a gallon all the way up to 4.00 and even 5.00 dollars a gallon in some places.
And now come the cries of 'gouging.'
Cry me a river.
The fact that some stations have inreased their prices to $4 a gallon or higher helps ensure that there will be some gas for me to purchase after work today. I'm not saying I want to pay $4 a gallon for gas. But with every yahoo lining up, raising prices is the best way to ensure that there will be some for me when I need to fill up later today.
Raising prices is also the best way to ensure that there will be some gas for me to fill up next week as well.
By the way... since I'm obviously in 'big oil's' back pocket, I let my car idle while I wrote this...
But their actions come at a price.
Newton's third law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Greater demand of an item vs. limited supply of that item means the price of said item rises.
Prices in this area have spiked from around 3.45 a gallon all the way up to 4.00 and even 5.00 dollars a gallon in some places.
And now come the cries of 'gouging.'
Cry me a river.
The fact that some stations have inreased their prices to $4 a gallon or higher helps ensure that there will be some gas for me to purchase after work today. I'm not saying I want to pay $4 a gallon for gas. But with every yahoo lining up, raising prices is the best way to ensure that there will be some for me when I need to fill up later today.
Raising prices is also the best way to ensure that there will be some gas for me to fill up next week as well.
By the way... since I'm obviously in 'big oil's' back pocket, I let my car idle while I wrote this...
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Almost An Adult... But Not Quite?
Earlier this month, one hundred college presidents as part of the Amethyst Initiative recommended that the drinking age in this country be lowered from 21 to 18.
When this surfaced, there were plenty of 'chicken little busy-bodies' who went nuts with cries of how thousands will die if that were to happen.
But first some background...
Back in 1984, Congress passed the 'National Minimum Drinking Age Act.' In it, the fine print: The Federal Government would impose a ten percent penalty on a state's federal highway appropriation if the state's drinking age was under 21.
In short, 'Do as I wish or I'll cut you off.'
Kind of reminds me of the movie 'Arthur.' Marry Susan... or else.
And across the nation, the minimum age to consume alcohol was 21.
However, 18 year olds were, and still are, considered LEGAL ADULTS.
An 18 year old can vote, enter into contracts, sit on a jury, enlist in the military, etc. And they can do it all without approval from their legal guardian.
If arrested, they are tried as adults, not juveniles.
An 18 year old in this country has the same legal rights as all other adults.
Except one.
They aren't allowed to buy or consume alcoholic beverages.
Why not?
Well, there are plenty of 'chicken-littles' out there who still look upon 18 year olds as 'babies' and feel they aren't mature enough to handle alcohol.
But they are mature enough to be sent to war or sit on your jury?
The drinking age in this country is condescending and an insult to any 18, 19 or 20 year old who is considered a legal adult...
But not quite.
When this surfaced, there were plenty of 'chicken little busy-bodies' who went nuts with cries of how thousands will die if that were to happen.
But first some background...
Back in 1984, Congress passed the 'National Minimum Drinking Age Act.' In it, the fine print: The Federal Government would impose a ten percent penalty on a state's federal highway appropriation if the state's drinking age was under 21.
In short, 'Do as I wish or I'll cut you off.'
Kind of reminds me of the movie 'Arthur.' Marry Susan... or else.
And across the nation, the minimum age to consume alcohol was 21.
However, 18 year olds were, and still are, considered LEGAL ADULTS.
An 18 year old can vote, enter into contracts, sit on a jury, enlist in the military, etc. And they can do it all without approval from their legal guardian.
If arrested, they are tried as adults, not juveniles.
An 18 year old in this country has the same legal rights as all other adults.
Except one.
They aren't allowed to buy or consume alcoholic beverages.
Why not?
Well, there are plenty of 'chicken-littles' out there who still look upon 18 year olds as 'babies' and feel they aren't mature enough to handle alcohol.
But they are mature enough to be sent to war or sit on your jury?
The drinking age in this country is condescending and an insult to any 18, 19 or 20 year old who is considered a legal adult...
But not quite.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Our 'Poor' Economy
There sure is a lot of news about our economy and how it, well... sucks.
Chicken Little: We're about to enter a recession, the price of gas is sky rocketing, people are losing their homes, food is so expensive, etc.
Why bother getting up in the morning?!
But here's the reality: The economy is FINE... as long as you don't watch the news!
Yours truly just returned from 8 days at the beach. The beach was fairly crowded and the traffic was TERRIBLE! You couldn't get anywhere quickly. At one traffic light we were stopped for two to three minutes, wasting gasoline in our SUV and surrounded by other HUGE, gas-guzzling SUV's also. At 4.19 a gallon, people aren't too concerned about their fuel economy...
The average time in line for eating out was about 45 minutes to an hour. And seafood isn't cheap either...
A trip to Target or Wal-Mart to stock up on food and other necessities was no easy task, either. It seems everyone had the same idea at the same time. You were lucky to find bread on the shelves.
Now one could argue that the above scenarios are typical of any beach resort on a holiday weekend. And that's true! But I feel certain I wasn't surrounded by 'the locals' either. The people came from somewhere else and the higher fuel prices didn't stop them from coming.
Next time you hear a report on the news or read something in the newspaper about our 'poor' economy, ask yourself why you still see so many people on the road and out buying things.
The economy is doing fine... as long as you don't watch the news.
Chicken Little: We're about to enter a recession, the price of gas is sky rocketing, people are losing their homes, food is so expensive, etc.
Why bother getting up in the morning?!
But here's the reality: The economy is FINE... as long as you don't watch the news!
Yours truly just returned from 8 days at the beach. The beach was fairly crowded and the traffic was TERRIBLE! You couldn't get anywhere quickly. At one traffic light we were stopped for two to three minutes, wasting gasoline in our SUV and surrounded by other HUGE, gas-guzzling SUV's also. At 4.19 a gallon, people aren't too concerned about their fuel economy...
The average time in line for eating out was about 45 minutes to an hour. And seafood isn't cheap either...
A trip to Target or Wal-Mart to stock up on food and other necessities was no easy task, either. It seems everyone had the same idea at the same time. You were lucky to find bread on the shelves.
Now one could argue that the above scenarios are typical of any beach resort on a holiday weekend. And that's true! But I feel certain I wasn't surrounded by 'the locals' either. The people came from somewhere else and the higher fuel prices didn't stop them from coming.
Next time you hear a report on the news or read something in the newspaper about our 'poor' economy, ask yourself why you still see so many people on the road and out buying things.
The economy is doing fine... as long as you don't watch the news.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Save gas and lives! Drive Slower!
John Ehinger recently wrote a column that appeared in the Sunday edition of the Huntsville Times.
The topic: Saving lives and driving down the cost of gasoline!
The solution? Simple, really. Just slow down! Driving slower would reduce the demand on gas by 2 to 3% and maybe knock the price of gas down by 10%. Driving slower is also safer, so this is obviously a 'win-win' situation for everybody.
Ehinger points out the solution, and then calls on what else? Government to fix it!
'The Alabama Legislature should lower the maximum speed limit to 60 mph on interstates and all other highways...'
It sure sounds good in theory... but it won't happen.
The reason it won't happen is because we're willing to accept a certain amount of risk for the benefit on not having a longer commute. Namely, driving 70mph on the interstate for 15 minutes as opposed to driving 35mph for 30 minutes.
We're also not willing to do everything we can to save on fuel. When radio stations hold promotional events and sell gas $1 a gallon, people line up as far as the eye can see. People will wait HOURS to be able to fill up and save $20-$30.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather pay $35 bucks to fill up my tank in 3 minutes and be done with it rather than wait an hour or two so I can pay $10 bucks for a fill-up.
And although hundreds line up for the cheaper gas, there are thousands more who DON'T.
Their time is more valuable!
Government can't pass a law that will change a human behavior.
The topic: Saving lives and driving down the cost of gasoline!
The solution? Simple, really. Just slow down! Driving slower would reduce the demand on gas by 2 to 3% and maybe knock the price of gas down by 10%. Driving slower is also safer, so this is obviously a 'win-win' situation for everybody.
Ehinger points out the solution, and then calls on what else? Government to fix it!
'The Alabama Legislature should lower the maximum speed limit to 60 mph on interstates and all other highways...'
It sure sounds good in theory... but it won't happen.
The reason it won't happen is because we're willing to accept a certain amount of risk for the benefit on not having a longer commute. Namely, driving 70mph on the interstate for 15 minutes as opposed to driving 35mph for 30 minutes.
We're also not willing to do everything we can to save on fuel. When radio stations hold promotional events and sell gas $1 a gallon, people line up as far as the eye can see. People will wait HOURS to be able to fill up and save $20-$30.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather pay $35 bucks to fill up my tank in 3 minutes and be done with it rather than wait an hour or two so I can pay $10 bucks for a fill-up.
And although hundreds line up for the cheaper gas, there are thousands more who DON'T.
Their time is more valuable!
Government can't pass a law that will change a human behavior.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)