Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Indiana's Religious Freedom Law. What Problem Does It Actually Fix?

As a born and raised resident of the first state in the union to legalize the recreational use of marijuana, I totally get it Indiana.

Some of what makes America so incredibly special is the fact that we are 50 separate but United States of America.  Whatever laws govern the environment within that state create the environment within that state.  For years now, despite the abject failure of America's attempt to prohibit alcohol sales and consumption, certain cities (usually down South) still maintain dry county status- in that you are expected to leave the city to purchase and consume alcohol.  In such places, most people quietly circumvent the rules, but undoubtedly there are local residents who remain happy residents of communities that have decided against alcohol as a vice.

Does the decision to become a dry county also come with the revelation that revenues typically generated from the consumption of alcohol are secondary to the health and social benefit of banning this mind altering elixir?  I would certainly hope so.  Nationwide, even in dry counties, our war over booze has made it abundantly clear that America loves its liquor and is willing to fight for the right to have it, so the value of being dry is more moral than tangible.



Nationwide, America has also taken bold stands on the issue of marriage.  From city to city, marriage equality has moved like a wildfire threatening to bring equality to a city near you even though many people still view homosexuality as a abomination.  What some of those same people have come to accept is that ALL sin is an abomination to God who doesn't isolate sexual sinners from murderers, at least not in Christian doctrine.  Even if our previously devout strain of homophobia is losing some panache, several unnamed faces are trying their best to keep gay bashing cool.  I call them unnamed faces because no one seems bold enough anymore to simply say they hate gay people and despise their lifestyle.  Instead, they create laws that allow for religious freedom (wink wink).  Indirectly, the message of this new law becomes one that says the ultra religious can now move to a place where they can vote to be a dry county for sin.

Inside of a dry county, revenue is sacrificed in the name of righteousness and righteous living. Indiana's new religious freedom law now allows any 'for profit' business owner to withhold their services from certain people for certain reason's and Indiana will protect this behavior as a religious freedom.  What that means in practice is anybody's guess since the law just got signed and the governor is begging to change it already.  In a detailed op-ed piece that Pence wrote to clarify the message of this law that he signed into existence, he admitted that he would probably not do business with  people that he saw refusing service to a gay couple.  In other words, governor Pence agrees with this portion of America. What he doesn't believe is that he just signed a law that legalizes the refusal of business to a gay couple, or black couple, or homeless couple or whatever justifies religious freedom for bigoted people. So what does this law do then?





Alcohol, tobacco and marijuana restrictions may be rooted in a moral component, but they are social vices- and banning them has always been an attempt to curb the use of these vices.  It doesn't work but there is no question what problem these approaches attempt to fix.

What Problem Did Indiana Fix?

The problem with this new law is that it totally begs the question of what problem needed fixing in the first place?  Were Indiana state legislators being overwhelmed with requests from their constituents that insisted something be done about the problem of gay people not staying over on the gay side of town or eating too much food at heterosexual restaurants?  What vision of accomplishment did the founder who wrote this law and the legislators who fought for it imagine themselves having once the ink was dry?  Would thousands of people rush from surrounding states to sit down in an eating establishment full of obviously straight folks?  Would restaurateurs warn out of state visitors that straight only eating establishments are only allowed in Indiana, so taking photos of straight people while eating is not allowed, especially if you are going to take the evidence back to your more liberal cities?



Indiana has employed dry county politics upon religion and have the nerve to call it freedom.  Even at the risk of losing the atheist and agnostic of Indiana, Pence signed the bill that he could hardly defend when challenged on national television. Pence clearly felt the pressure from conservative leanings, but the pressure to defend it will be stronger than the ink that created it.  Across the world, protests of all sorts have surfaced against the actions of Indiana and its governing body.  The final outcome of this debate remains murky.  The problem that it now creates for Indiana is not.  Indiana is not unique in religious freedom legislation but they are unique in extending it to businesses that make a profit. Much like Indiana's neighboring states with dry counties that happily shun the revenues of debauchery, Indiana will now have to decide if the lost revenue that will certainly come as a result of this lone wolf stand is worth being isolated from the pack.




Over and over, governor Pence keeps insisting that Indiana is not a bigoted state and this law was NOT intended to discriminate against anyone.  What he- nor his legislators that sent the bill to him have cleared up is exactly the reason they needed to add language unique to this old legislation.  Advocates will tell you some weird story about people who work in the wedding industry being forced to do gay weddings despite religious opinions, but you really have to press them on the question just to get this gay wedding example which ultimately admits to the gay bias. Governor Pence already wants legislators to modify the bill to insure that Indiana doesn't lose business from the assumption that this bill was targeted at freedom from servicing gay people.

If legislators add the language to un-address exactly what this law addresses. then what value remains in the original bill.

Pence and his peeps keep trying to convince us that this law fixes a problem by reaffirming what it does not do. So once and for all Pence. What did Indiana actually fix with this law?  I keep getting confused.

Saturday, March 28, 2015

Why Republicans Refuse To Fire Attorney General Eric Holder?

Free Eric Holder!  Approve Loretta Lynch.
Republicans refuse to fire Attorney General Eric Holder because they hate Barack Obama.

This should be the shortest article I've ever written, but its not that simple this time either.  Barack Obama is not just a graduate of Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law, he remains a student in everything he does.  In other words, Obama does his homework and takes his tests based upon a fair amount of research and study.  He might not be the class valedictorian, but he's not a C student either.

With everything that Obama has chosen to do as President of the United States, he has never discounted the factor of his own skin despite the insistence that no one else notices it.  Living as a president might have been a transition for Obama, but being black was not.  His life experience dictated to him and all others of similar experience, that the rules would be different for someone presumably inferior.

The same occurs with women of power who are expected to be twice as effective to stave off the onslaught of the majority.  With Bowe Bergdahl, Obama had to research the impact of leaving a soldier that intelligence said he could free- or freeing a soldier with a questionable story behind his capture. Either option would bear criticism, but the research said "No Man Left Behind" would be more negatively resounding than "He Brought Home A Deserter".  His research was basically correct in that Bergdahl fell into obscurity until he was found guilty of desertion, and will probably be forgotten again now that he is serving his punishment.  Critics might attempt to track the murderous efforts of the military leaders that were exchanged for Bergdahl, but absent such credible intelligence, this story is a wrap.

Benjamin Netanyahu and his republican cohorts in congress might be trying to block the negotiations with Iran, but they will never be able to block the historical potential that such an agreement represents.  While opponents of the deal could be totally correct about Iran's lack of trustworthiness, they still dismiss the fact that Iran is at the table to sign some kind of deal.  If Iranian leaders actually sign their names to the kind of deal that Bibi would like, then Bibi and the world would have contributed to a lasting peace effort that should be the goal of all nations.  If those who should be invested in lasting peace begin to scream "liar" during the negotiation process, what will they say when the war breaks out?

As in a good game of poker, you never want to  reveal your suspicions, especially if you genuinely have them.  Undoubtedly, Iran must be suspicious of the lasting sustainability of any deal that they would sign given the volatility of the US congress and their ability to apply pressure with a bill or sheer will.  The mere fact that this coalition of negotiators has not dissolved under the pressure of  congressional Obama hatred is a testimony to the homework of Obama and his administration.  Only well tested relationships could withstand these outside attacks and Obama is passing the first part of this test simply by keeping this coalition intact.

No way Obama saw this coming.  No way anyone saw it.
Love him or hate him, he does his homework.
 He did enough homework for several members of this existing congress to approve the existing AG Eric Holder, whom they now seem to despise.  Despite rabid protest against Holder during the past year or two, republicans refuse to fire this guy tomorrow and replace him with the nominee who has been waiting 140 days (and counting) to receive a vote.  The problem this time is that first thing again.  The first Black president is trying to replace the first Black American AG with the first female Black American AG, and he did his homework to uncover the best first black female he could find.

Is Lynch too good for her own good?
Loretta Lynch has a reputation that is unassailable.  If it was otherwise, she would have been thoroughly assailed already.  Instead, she is on the edge of making history being blocked with an historical measure never seen before.  Republicans have decided that Lynch can be approved- but only if democrats concede on a child sex trafficking bill with restrictive abortion (Hyde amendment) language attached as well.  Once again, never before has a cabinet nominee been conditionally approved in lieu of unrelated legislation- although republicans have tried to slide abortion language through the back door for decades.

 Reagan AG nominee, Edwin Meese III, had to wait over a year for a confirmation vote, but only because he required clearing from a Justice Department investigation, not because he couldn't get a vote. Why this particular public policy issue is being pushed through the back door is confusing since other major issues like ObamaCare or Immigration reform seem like bigger matters  for republicans to pursue a win.

In fact, congressional republicans seem ill-concerned with winning at all.  They simply need homework boy to stop winning so much.  How dare he attempt to ride into the sunset by fixing Immigration a little while also negotiating a global nuke deal and then inserting the first black female AG.  By law, republicans can't stop any executive actions on immigration unless they pass a bill through congress(lol).  They can't even legally interrupt the nuclear negotiations with Iran because Obama is not negotiating a treaty, just an adjustment to the sanctions that have forced Iran to the table.

But this!  This area is TOTALLY in the hands of congress who has the singular duty of approving or disapproving every presidential cabinet nominee.  They could, and should, vote up or down on Lynch, but doing so might impede this great opportunity to finally force homework boy to fail a test.  No way did he expect an historical first to block his historical first.  Nothing in the research books would have revealed such a thing, so no one could have accurately predicted what is happening to Lynch as we speak.


Well actually, Eric Holder might have predicted this.  Probably a day or so after he announced his departure he woke up in the middle of the night while dreaming of the vacations he richly deserves and thought, "what if they don't let me go".  Holder's own confirmation took 64 days so he knew that it could take some time, but being blocked from his vacation planning by an abortion amendment was the last thing Holder or anyone expected.

Maneuvering political influence to get something when you are giving up something is normal politics.  Jamming up nominees and forcing the nation to operate without a wheel has taken obstructionism to a new low.


Friday, March 27, 2015

Why Don't Modern Basketball Fans Understand Triple Doubles?


I probably would not have cared to write this one if it weren't for all of those people who don't understand what the words "Triple Double" actually mean (see; Amin Elhassan of ESPN)

Certain sports fans, mostly of a younger generation, have never really seen the triple double player in action.  Michael Jordan was an incredible player who flooded the stat sheet every night- but not often with triple doubles.  Jordan started playing when the triple double era was ending.  In many ways, Jordan didn't win a thing until the triple double legends moved aside to let him have his time under the sun.

Jordan's heir apparent, King LeBron James, is equally capable of completing double digit production in any one of the categories that make up a potential triple double- but even he doesn't get triple doubles very often. At his current pace, he won't finish his career with more of them than legendary big man Wilt Chamberlain who defines the post passer.

Since the era of the triple double ended, the players that have gotten them with some level of noteworthiness have been slim and few.  David Robinson would grab one here and there because of his ability to block so many shots.  Allen Iverson might have snatched a couple of them when his gambling defense paid off and he actually stole 10 balls to add to the 10 buckets he always gave while trying for steals.  Steals and blocks are  really tough to come by, so they are the least common stats to round out  a triple double.  Double doubles are extremely common because many players can both score and rebound in double digits on any given night. But triple doubles?  They remain extra special because they are usually done by a certain kind of player.


PASS THE BALL

Triple doubles are something that died with the era of the double digit assist makers. Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, even local favorite Lafayette "Fat" Lever used to post a bunch. Despite a vibrant history of incredible players in the NBA, some of the greatest passers of all-time don't even scratch the list of all time triple doubles.  Isaiah Thomas, John Stockton and Steve Nash don't make the list.  These players had a unique ability to pass the ball, but rarely could get 10 assists on the same night they got 10 boards or 10 steals as well?  Only a few special players have done this over the course of several games, Jason Kidd being the last of the modern era players to get over 100 of them in his career.

Choose who you will for MVP because a credible case can be made for every player in the fantastic foursome of MVP candidates.  LeBron has plenty of parts and pieces to work with, but his ability to turn it all into championship quality teamwork is something none of the other MVP candidates could have accomplished. LeBron used to get an occasional triple double himself (7th all-time), but those days are becoming fewer and farther between. LeBron's 36 career triple doubles are a far cry behind Jason Kidd (107) or Magic Johnson (138).


NBA All-Time Triple-Doubles – Regular Season
Rk.PlayerTeam(s)Total# of Yrs
1Oscar RobertsonCincinnati Royals (1960/01 – 1969/70)
Milwaukee Bucks (1970/71 – 1973/74)
18114
2Magic JohnsonLos Angeles Lakers (1979/80 – 1990/91, 1995/96)13813
3Jason KiddDallas Mavericks (1994/95 – 1996/97, 2007/08)
Phoenix Suns (1996/97 – 2000/01)
New Jersey Nets (2001/02 – 2007/08)
Dallas Mavericks (2007/08 – 2011/12)
New York Knicke (2012/13)
10719
4Wilt ChamberlainPhiladelphia Warriors (1959/60 – 1961/62)
San Francisco Warriors (1962/63 – 1964/65)
Philadelphia 76ers (1964/65 – 1967/68)
Los Angeles Lakers (1968/69 – 1972/73)
7814
5Larry BirdBoston Celtics (1979/80 – 1991/92)5913
6Lafayette LeverPortland Trailblazers (1982/83 – 1983/94)
Denver Nuggets (1984/85 – 1989/90)
Dallas Mavericks (1990/91 – 1993/94)
4311
7* LeBron JamesCleveland Cavaliers (2003/04 – 2009/10)
Miami Heat (2010/11 – present)
3611
8John HavlicekBoston Celtics (1962/63 – 1977/78)3016
9Grant HillDetroit Pistons (1994/95 – 1999/00)
Orlando Magic (2000/01 – 2006/07
Phoenix Suns (2007/08 – 2012/13)
2917
10Michael JordanChicago Bulls (1984/85 – 1992/93)
Chicago Bulls (1994/95 – 1997/98)
Washington Wizards (2001/02 – 2002/03)
2815
11Clyde DrexlerPortland Trailblazers (1983/84 – 1994/95)
Houston Rockets (1994/95 – 1997/98)
2515

























































While you could easily vote him MVP every year, I see LeBron's season as the least MVP worthy of the four, but only because we always try to share MVP love whenever first time candidates prove worthy to get a taste.

According to this standard, Stephen Curry and James Harden looked to be neck and neck in the horse race to win a first time award.  With Harden and Curry, their MVP resumes were written early in the season as their teams have lead the western conference race from start to finish. Westbrook, on the other hand, has had to race just to get his team into the race. Is Westbrook unfairly tainted one way or the other by the desperation of his team?  Absent Oklahoma City's other best players (Kevin Durant and Serge Ibaka), Westbrook has been free to be everything for a team that needs everything on every night just to maintain their playoff positioning. Though he is clearly getting every opportunity to stuff the stat sheet, the man is getting triple doubles every night.  Not 50 point games, which some people think is a much harder accomplishment. Triple doubles.

Let's not be confused.  50 points is tough also, which is why NEITHER of these rarities used to happen every night.  Unless your name is Westbrook, the rare triple double is still just as rare as ever.  The main reason why the triple double remains so rare is because it depends on teammates to make the shot.  That doesn't sound like a big deal for pro players, but the coordination of having your team make every shot you pass to them is difficult.  Assuming that they miss a few shots(let's say 50%), you will need twice as many assist attempts to achieve half as much success. Westbrook is recording 10 or more assists at the same time that he's scoring 20 and 30 points himself.  Add to that the double digit rebounds that he's pulling down every night and it gets hard to understand how you vote against him.

I don't give a lot of credence to the MVP vote anyways since sometimes its a lifetime achievement award whereas other times the voting reflects a lifetime underachievement penalty against deserving players with tense media relationships.  Westbrook has typically been that guy, especially during the days when nobody believed he was worthy of taking as many shots as last years MVP, Kevin Durant.  Without a healthy Durant, Westbrook has improved his stack ranking on a team where he was already #2 mainly because his ranking is the entire league is also rising fast.


Young sportswriters might not remember the triple double era and they might not be able to forgo Westbrook's edgy past in lieu of his present and bright future, but there are plenty of MVP voters who do remember watching Magic and Bird..and Fat. Westbrook will depend on these voters to help us all decide if the revival of the triple double era is something worthy of an MVP.  More importantly, is it worthy of forgetting the fact that most media members were so critical of  Westbrook just weeks before he tripled down on the entire league.

LeBron James has logged a few miles, but is still the smartest basketball player on the planet while Stephen Curry has skills with the ball that likely make him the best basketball player.  James Harden is too weak on defense to be the best player, but he is certainly the hardest to cover and is MVP worthy for overcoming Houston's loss of Dwight Howard.  Westbrook has been accused of playing more for triple doubles than victories, but I find it hard to consider any player who consistently achieves a balanced performance as playing more for balance than victories.  10+ points in the NBA are way too easy for Westbrook, but the rebounds and assists come from effort and selflessness.  Those who truly question Westbrook's motives with night after night triple doubles are probably among the group that Russell rubbed the wrong way back in the day.

I would love to see Russell win an MVP just to revive memories of the days of my NBA youth, when triple dubs were often done by the hoop maestro's of the league. Come to think of it, whether he wins an MVP or not, he already has.