She looks to be in her early twenties and is overweight. She's wearing a backpack and is pinching a folded red jacket between her right arm and her body. A gusting wind blows back her light brown hair as she stands on the ledge atop the seven story parking garage. I can see her perched there from my window.
She's been up there about an hour now. The police cordoned off the sidewalk and street beneath her. I can't see if there's a someone up there trying to talk her off the ledge. Disturbed is about the only way I can describe how I feel at the moment.
When she first got up there, I could see a crowd forming from my window. A breezeway between my office building and the parking garage blocks my view of the street corner where she'd land. It was morbid curiosity which made me get up from my desk and walk outside to see the whole scene. I stayed outside for only a minute. That's all the time I needed to soak in what we've all seen before in movies. In real life, though, the sight of a jumper turns the stomach more.
As I walked back to my office, I passed people rushing outside. Some were laughing. If I hadn't been alone when I went out, maybe I would have cracked a joke. Look at my last post. I thought it was funny that a group trying to prevent suicides would use the Golden Gate Bridge in a promotional flyer. Since the joke is about the suicide prevention people, not the job they do, maybe it's still funny. I don't know. But I do know if I see a jumper again, I won't joke.
Earlier this morning I wrote an item for The Report. A political campaign was claiming the down economy caused more instances of child abuse. While writing the item, my baloney detector was going off. Now, I'm not so sure.
I've been writing this post for about 15 minutes. During that time I got a call on a recirculation plan to pump water out of the Delta, use canals to convey it upstream, then release it into the San Joaquin River. The idea is to reduce salinity levels in the San Joaquin River by flushing cleaner water through it. I wish I could have paid more attention during the call, but my mind is elsewhere.
She's still up there. Maybe God heard my prayer asking that He touch her heart, give her hope and get her off that ledge.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Do-Over part 2
OK. I'm done with thinktanking on the realistic chance that there could be an initiative expunging all changes made to the CA constitution after a certain date. A friend of mine who is a constitutional lawyer said an initiative is not the right instrument for such a change. He said the Legislature could do it in a similar fashion to how it changed the Constitution in 1966 so legislators could become full-time employees of the state. But I seriously doubt the Legislature would ever undertake such a controversial proposal as wiping out large portions of the constitution.
So I'm back to cynically cracking on the idea of a constitution convention. In that vein, I propose a 30-second commercial that would promote the brilliant idea that is expunging all additions to the constitution after a certain date.
One thing before I get into writing the script for the commercial: I chose the slogan "California needs a Do-Over" because of the playground mentality the words "do-over" imply. I thought about California needs a mulligan, but that's so country club.
Anyway here's the script.
Opening scene.
Classroom. An elementary school teacher stands in front of the black board with the words "Structural Deficit" written upon it.
Teacher: "OK class, so when the state is obligated by law to spend more money than it takes in through taxes and other revenues, that's called a structural deficit."
Camera quickly pans to students sitting at their desks looking completely bored.
The recess bells rings and the students all jump up from their desks and rush for the door.
Next scene is kids playing four-square in the school yard. A little dexter looking boy with glasses and a bow tie serves the ball to a prissily dressed little girl. The camera follows the ball in slow motion as it just barely lands out of bounds.
Girl: "That serve was out of bounds. My serve."
Boy: "No it wasn't. That was a liner."
Girl: "You can't call a liner. The California Code of Four Square Rules clearly state in chapter 768, subsection B, liners may not be called without a yard duty present."
Boy: "No. If you had read carefully, you would have seen that subsection B is only in effect for noon recess as defined by Chapter 213 of the California Education Code. This is morning recess, so chapter 768, subsection B, has no relevance here.
Girl: "Does-to"
Boy: "Does-not"
Girl: "Does-to"
Boy: "Does-not"
As the "Does-to/Does-not" back and forth slowly becomes fainter and fainter, the camera pulls back to show all four kids standing in the squares. It moves in for a tight shot on a boy or girl looking completely apathetic with his or her arms folded across his or her chest. That child looks directly into the camera and screams: "Just call a do-over."
Last scene with voice over (I'm thinking Patrick Steward type voice). The screen says "Vote Yes on Prop. Whatever!" Voice says, "Expunge changes to the Constitution made after (whatever year). California needs a do-over."
So I'm back to cynically cracking on the idea of a constitution convention. In that vein, I propose a 30-second commercial that would promote the brilliant idea that is expunging all additions to the constitution after a certain date.
One thing before I get into writing the script for the commercial: I chose the slogan "California needs a Do-Over" because of the playground mentality the words "do-over" imply. I thought about California needs a mulligan, but that's so country club.
Anyway here's the script.
Opening scene.
Classroom. An elementary school teacher stands in front of the black board with the words "Structural Deficit" written upon it.
Teacher: "OK class, so when the state is obligated by law to spend more money than it takes in through taxes and other revenues, that's called a structural deficit."
Camera quickly pans to students sitting at their desks looking completely bored.
The recess bells rings and the students all jump up from their desks and rush for the door.
Next scene is kids playing four-square in the school yard. A little dexter looking boy with glasses and a bow tie serves the ball to a prissily dressed little girl. The camera follows the ball in slow motion as it just barely lands out of bounds.
Girl: "That serve was out of bounds. My serve."
Boy: "No it wasn't. That was a liner."
Girl: "You can't call a liner. The California Code of Four Square Rules clearly state in chapter 768, subsection B, liners may not be called without a yard duty present."
Boy: "No. If you had read carefully, you would have seen that subsection B is only in effect for noon recess as defined by Chapter 213 of the California Education Code. This is morning recess, so chapter 768, subsection B, has no relevance here.
Girl: "Does-to"
Boy: "Does-not"
Girl: "Does-to"
Boy: "Does-not"
As the "Does-to/Does-not" back and forth slowly becomes fainter and fainter, the camera pulls back to show all four kids standing in the squares. It moves in for a tight shot on a boy or girl looking completely apathetic with his or her arms folded across his or her chest. That child looks directly into the camera and screams: "Just call a do-over."
Last scene with voice over (I'm thinking Patrick Steward type voice). The screen says "Vote Yes on Prop. Whatever!" Voice says, "Expunge changes to the Constitution made after (whatever year). California needs a do-over."
Friday, March 27, 2009
Do-Over
So I commented on a blog post over at Fox and Hounds Daily. The post was about calling a constitutional convention to rewrite CA's constitution. I commented under the psuedonym O&R for Otto & Rhys, my sons. My first instinct was to cynically spoof the idea of a constitutional convention. I mean, seriously, the same interest groups and public officials who can't agree on raising taxes or cutting services will come together and put forth a coherent set of laws that will rule the land? Please. They've already caused enough problems extending and amending the original document. In fact, the new constitutional provisions and amendments are the reason people feel like we should start all over again. Isn't it?
So I wrote a what I thought was a comical comment. But now that I've gone thinktank on what I originally said, I'm not so sure my idea wouldn't work.
Here's what I said:
"Instead of a convention, how about an initiative that expunges all changes made to the CA constitution after a certain year. I can see the campaign slogan now: "Vote Yes on Prop. Whatever! California needs a do-over." Seriously though, rather than starting from the beginning, picking a date from which to slash and burn might work better. Yeah, we'd have a kind of wild-west regulatory environment for a while since wide swaths of the constitution would literally vanish overnight. But the vacuum left behind would force the Legislature and the Governor to really focus their energies and limit distractions. What worked before but was lost would easily return. What didn't won't. If things really go awry, there's always the remaining portion of the Constitution to fall back upon."
I'm not a constitutional lawyer, so I don't know if it's even legal to pick a date and expunge parts of the constitution. But it seems to me if expunging parts of the constitution is legal, that would be an easier political route than trying to write the whole thing all over again.
So I wrote a what I thought was a comical comment. But now that I've gone thinktank on what I originally said, I'm not so sure my idea wouldn't work.
Here's what I said:
"Instead of a convention, how about an initiative that expunges all changes made to the CA constitution after a certain year. I can see the campaign slogan now: "Vote Yes on Prop. Whatever! California needs a do-over." Seriously though, rather than starting from the beginning, picking a date from which to slash and burn might work better. Yeah, we'd have a kind of wild-west regulatory environment for a while since wide swaths of the constitution would literally vanish overnight. But the vacuum left behind would force the Legislature and the Governor to really focus their energies and limit distractions. What worked before but was lost would easily return. What didn't won't. If things really go awry, there's always the remaining portion of the Constitution to fall back upon."
I'm not a constitutional lawyer, so I don't know if it's even legal to pick a date and expunge parts of the constitution. But it seems to me if expunging parts of the constitution is legal, that would be an easier political route than trying to write the whole thing all over again.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Whether Report
I must say I'm pretty enthusiastic about being on the Safeway/Bicycles Plus racing team this year. So enthusiastic, as a matter of fact, that I'm considering a one-hour endurance commute through rush hour traffic just to pick up my team biking shorts.
The first shipment from Pactimo, our team's clothing manufacturer, didn't contain the shorts. Yesterday an email notified us the shorts are at the shop in Folsom. I've been holding back an urge to neglect my job and get out there right away. I feel like I did in little league when coaches passed out uniforms. I'm pretty sure I won't sleep in my cycling kit like I did my baseball gear way back when. Maybe I would if I was single.
So whether to go or not to go? I guess I'll do the mature thing and go home to my wife and kids after work. Growing up ain't easy.
The first shipment from Pactimo, our team's clothing manufacturer, didn't contain the shorts. Yesterday an email notified us the shorts are at the shop in Folsom. I've been holding back an urge to neglect my job and get out there right away. I feel like I did in little league when coaches passed out uniforms. I'm pretty sure I won't sleep in my cycling kit like I did my baseball gear way back when. Maybe I would if I was single.
So whether to go or not to go? I guess I'll do the mature thing and go home to my wife and kids after work. Growing up ain't easy.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Tyranny of the Majority
Assemblymember Hector De La Torre from Los Angeles introduced a bill that would expunge a despicable ghost from California's past. While his intention is commendable, I don't think we should eliminate a piece of our history serving as a vivid reminder to future generations of just how wrong popular opinion can be sometimes.
First a little background on the origins of De La Torre's bill:
During the first half of the 20th century, housing developers inserted covenants in deeds to their new homes which, in effect, created legally enforceable "whites only" neighborhoods. While in the title business, I saw many of these covenants. From my recollection, the offensive language typically begin: "Only members of the Caucasian race may hold title to this real property."
The Supreme Court struck down these clauses in 1948 (That's according to an AP story. I Googled for the opinion but came up empty.) While these racist clauses are now legally unenforceable, they remain on title deeds as part of the property's legal description.
De La Torre's bill would require someone (title companies or county record keepers) to erase the language from all title deeds carrying it. I saw thousands of these deeds containing that language while working in Santa Cruz and Sacramento Counties. My guess is there are millions of deeds in California containing that language. Not surprisingly, title companies and county recorders oppose De La Torre's bill because of the extra costs they'd incur implementing the new law.
While I agree the financial aspect might be onerous, my opposition to the bill is more philosophical. (A surprising plot twist from a guy who goes by Thinktank to be sure.)
According to popular opinion in California at the time, it was fine and dandy for developers to include racist clauses in deeds. The thinking probably was creating "whites only neighborhoods" would keep property values high. While popular opinion has since changed dramatically, the fact remains a majority of Californians once believed segregated housing was something the government should enforce.
As every 9th grader learns, our Founding Fathers created a system of checks and balance to protect US citizens from tyranny of the majority. Yet, popular opinion still has the ability to drive policymakers into positions that clearly hurt a minority. Government enforcement of racist housing clauses are a case in point.
Just because something is popular doesn't make it right. Going with the flow is comfortable to be sure. But progress is hard fought. It was easy being nice to popular people in school and thereby becoming popular yourself. But the kid who had his or her nose in a book probably gained the most in the long run.
So when we go about trying to erase from the past instances when government followed what was popular, we rob future generations the opportunity to remember just how fallible popular opinion can be.
First a little background on the origins of De La Torre's bill:
During the first half of the 20th century, housing developers inserted covenants in deeds to their new homes which, in effect, created legally enforceable "whites only" neighborhoods. While in the title business, I saw many of these covenants. From my recollection, the offensive language typically begin: "Only members of the Caucasian race may hold title to this real property."
The Supreme Court struck down these clauses in 1948 (That's according to an AP story. I Googled for the opinion but came up empty.) While these racist clauses are now legally unenforceable, they remain on title deeds as part of the property's legal description.
De La Torre's bill would require someone (title companies or county record keepers) to erase the language from all title deeds carrying it. I saw thousands of these deeds containing that language while working in Santa Cruz and Sacramento Counties. My guess is there are millions of deeds in California containing that language. Not surprisingly, title companies and county recorders oppose De La Torre's bill because of the extra costs they'd incur implementing the new law.
While I agree the financial aspect might be onerous, my opposition to the bill is more philosophical. (A surprising plot twist from a guy who goes by Thinktank to be sure.)
According to popular opinion in California at the time, it was fine and dandy for developers to include racist clauses in deeds. The thinking probably was creating "whites only neighborhoods" would keep property values high. While popular opinion has since changed dramatically, the fact remains a majority of Californians once believed segregated housing was something the government should enforce.
As every 9th grader learns, our Founding Fathers created a system of checks and balance to protect US citizens from tyranny of the majority. Yet, popular opinion still has the ability to drive policymakers into positions that clearly hurt a minority. Government enforcement of racist housing clauses are a case in point.
Just because something is popular doesn't make it right. Going with the flow is comfortable to be sure. But progress is hard fought. It was easy being nice to popular people in school and thereby becoming popular yourself. But the kid who had his or her nose in a book probably gained the most in the long run.
So when we go about trying to erase from the past instances when government followed what was popular, we rob future generations the opportunity to remember just how fallible popular opinion can be.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Just business
For some reason I've been thinking about a story my friend told me a couple of years ago. The moral of the story is that politics is a tough business. Yes, there are times when competitors may rightfully hold a grudge. However, sometimes a transgression is really just someone conducting business as usual and the aggrieved party should simply move along.
The story begins in 1972. My buddy's dad was Speaker of the California Assembly. As Speaker it was his job to direct campaign resources into districts where he believed his party could win a seat from the opposing party.
So my buddy's dad targets a seat held by a friend of his in the Fresno area. Well, the friend squeaked out a victory. When the two men met in Sacramento again after the election, my buddy's dad says to his friend, "I hope there are no hard feelings. Targeting you was just business." My buddy's dad was a tennis player and asks his friend if he plays tennis. The friend replies, "No, I'm a golfer."
The two men part ways and go back to their offices. When the friend from Fresno returns to his office the receptionist says to him, "The Speaker's office just called. You have a tennis lesson tomorrow."
My buddy's dad died of a heart attack in 1984. His friend from Fresno died in 2000. Still, in the years before their deaths, the two men and their families would take vacations together and the two families are still tight today.
I wish I could think of a corollary between that story and the way our current California leaders conduct business today. There have been a lot of claims that camaraderie between Democrats and Republicans is dead. I don't believe it's completely dead, but I would say the political stakes have raised a lot since 1972 because now there is tremendously more money involved. So with the higher stakes the likeliness of competitors becoming friends and remaining close after a political battle decreases.
Maybe it would help if in the next budget, there are funds for building a tennis court in Capitol Park.
The story begins in 1972. My buddy's dad was Speaker of the California Assembly. As Speaker it was his job to direct campaign resources into districts where he believed his party could win a seat from the opposing party.
So my buddy's dad targets a seat held by a friend of his in the Fresno area. Well, the friend squeaked out a victory. When the two men met in Sacramento again after the election, my buddy's dad says to his friend, "I hope there are no hard feelings. Targeting you was just business." My buddy's dad was a tennis player and asks his friend if he plays tennis. The friend replies, "No, I'm a golfer."
The two men part ways and go back to their offices. When the friend from Fresno returns to his office the receptionist says to him, "The Speaker's office just called. You have a tennis lesson tomorrow."
My buddy's dad died of a heart attack in 1984. His friend from Fresno died in 2000. Still, in the years before their deaths, the two men and their families would take vacations together and the two families are still tight today.
I wish I could think of a corollary between that story and the way our current California leaders conduct business today. There have been a lot of claims that camaraderie between Democrats and Republicans is dead. I don't believe it's completely dead, but I would say the political stakes have raised a lot since 1972 because now there is tremendously more money involved. So with the higher stakes the likeliness of competitors becoming friends and remaining close after a political battle decreases.
Maybe it would help if in the next budget, there are funds for building a tennis court in Capitol Park.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Cap and Trade
The slumbering greenhouse gas bill in the Senate should never rise again. It’s bad policy for the federal government to set a cap for greenhouse gas emissions then create a market for trading emitting rights. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a laudable idea. When a clear majority of experts in the field agree that global warming is a threat, it's time for action. Only it would be a misguided action to create a $7 trillion government-run market by the year 2050, which is what the bill’s co-author Joe Lieberman expects to do. Judging from the history of government-run programs this new colossus will undoubtedly become bureaucratic, opaque and ripe with opportunity for lobbyist shenanigans at the public's expense.
Moreover, a market for trading carbon emissions is bad for the environment. Inherent in any market is a prejudice for continuing the use of what's being traded. President Bush said, "America is addicted to oil." No matter how stringent the carbon cap, a junkie with $7 trillion in his pocket will never kick the habit.
If government must act, placing a straightforward tax based on a fuel's carbon content would be better than sprouting a complex $7 trillion boondoggle. It would be better still for Congress to leave fossil fuels alone and instead create tax incentives for nuclear power; a cheap and carbon free source of energy.
No matter how many new and sophisticated devices are invented for sanitizing carbon emissions, burning fossil fuels will never be a cleaner source of energy than nuclear. Dr. Arthur Rosenfeld is a California Energy Commissioner and Enrico Fermi Award winning physicist. He said it will take nuclear power and more energy conservation to meet the nation's energy demands while addressing global warming at the same time. Creating a $7 trillion market that would favor fossil fuels over nuclear power just forestalls the inevitable.
A $7 trillion market favoring fossil fuels is bad for national security, too. Nuclear power could help win the War on Terror without endangering a single soldier. We're at war with terrorists whose funding ultimately derives from oil and natural gas revenues. If we build more nuclear plants, we reduce demand for oil and natural gas. If we reduce demand, we reduce the price. If we reduce the price, we reduce funding for terrorism. If we reduce funding for terrorism, we reduce the number of terrorists. Therefore, nuclear power could help win the War on Terror.
In Saturday's AP story on Lieberman's bill it said -- "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested it [the bill] would fare better next year with a new president." I've read nothing to suggest she's wrong. Too bad.
Moreover, a market for trading carbon emissions is bad for the environment. Inherent in any market is a prejudice for continuing the use of what's being traded. President Bush said, "America is addicted to oil." No matter how stringent the carbon cap, a junkie with $7 trillion in his pocket will never kick the habit.
If government must act, placing a straightforward tax based on a fuel's carbon content would be better than sprouting a complex $7 trillion boondoggle. It would be better still for Congress to leave fossil fuels alone and instead create tax incentives for nuclear power; a cheap and carbon free source of energy.
No matter how many new and sophisticated devices are invented for sanitizing carbon emissions, burning fossil fuels will never be a cleaner source of energy than nuclear. Dr. Arthur Rosenfeld is a California Energy Commissioner and Enrico Fermi Award winning physicist. He said it will take nuclear power and more energy conservation to meet the nation's energy demands while addressing global warming at the same time. Creating a $7 trillion market that would favor fossil fuels over nuclear power just forestalls the inevitable.
A $7 trillion market favoring fossil fuels is bad for national security, too. Nuclear power could help win the War on Terror without endangering a single soldier. We're at war with terrorists whose funding ultimately derives from oil and natural gas revenues. If we build more nuclear plants, we reduce demand for oil and natural gas. If we reduce demand, we reduce the price. If we reduce the price, we reduce funding for terrorism. If we reduce funding for terrorism, we reduce the number of terrorists. Therefore, nuclear power could help win the War on Terror.
In Saturday's AP story on Lieberman's bill it said -- "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested it [the bill] would fare better next year with a new president." I've read nothing to suggest she's wrong. Too bad.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Merry XMAS
So I know I said my next blog would be about the political problems with turning an unused right of way through the North Coast redwoods into a bike trail, but that's not happening. I'm at home with a mild case of tonsillitis and my notes on the North Coast Railroad Authority are in the office.
Instead, I'll jot down a devilish (at least I think so) little script for a 30-second TV commercial that Republicans could use if the budget stalemate goes into October.
Constitutionally the budget for the state of CA should be in place by July 1. The current record for not having a spending plan enacted is 67 days. That infamous document was signed Sept. 5, 2002 by then Gov. Gray Davis. The next year Arnold ushered Davis out of town.
Having the stalement continue into October is almost unthinkable, but in thinktankland, and with the politics of the situation, this just could be the year of the perfect storm:
1. Republicans aren't going to gain or lose a single seat in the legislature because a budget isn't passed.
2. Legislative Republicans want to extract a pound of flesh from the Governor for having stiffed them on global warming legislation.
3. The CA Republican Party could get decline-to-state voters to switch registration if it sticks to its "taxpayer defender" image and drops its "polluter protector" image.
# 3 is pure thinktank and has to do with Senate Republicans linking votes for the state's budget to changes they want made to the CA Environmental Quality Act. Tying the CEQA issue to the budget is a loser for Republicans because if the budget stalemate goes on for months it'll cost too much in outreach campaigns or be just plain old impossible to convince voters why these two issues should be linked. More importantly tying CEQA to the budget detracts from their winning issue: prudent spending. If the budget conference report gets reopened, an October signing isn't unlikely. At that point, the February presidential primary will be around the corner. Months of news stories and possibly issue ads reinforcing the CA GOP as the home for prudent spenders can only help get-out-the-vote efforts before the February primary. The benefits from those stories and ads should even spill over to the June primary and November general too.
OK, back to my idea for a 30-second TV commercial.
Scene: Check out counter at expensive looking department store around Christmas time.
Characters:
Don Perata -- Senate Pres. Pro Tem -- dressed in a mobster lookin' sharkskin pinstrip suit. No fedora.
Fabian Nunez -- Assembly Speaker -- attired in custom wool suit with expensive looking silk tie.
Yes Men and Women -- 10 or 15 hangers-on, also in fine sartorial fashion, all clutching stuffed shopping bags.
Department Store Clerk -- Someone old enough to look like he or she should be retired.
Opening screen: text plus voice over in tone of game show announcer - "The CA Legislature goes Christmas shopping. Starring your Senate President pro Tem Don Perata and your Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez." Quick fade to black. Opening scene: Perata and Nunez walking side by side approaching the clerk with their Yes Men and Women trailing closely. Perata and Nunez have "ignorance is bliss" type countenances. Yes Man No. 1 carries a humidor
Perata (to Nunez) -- Getting Arnie a humidor for Christmas was a great idea.
Nunez -- Yeah, he can put his cuban cigars in this one.
Yes Man No. 1 plops humidor on counter top. Departs meekly back to group
Clerk -- How would you like to pay for this?
Perata and Nunez (jovially and in unison) -- Credit card!
Perata snaps his fingers summoning for a credit card. Yes Man No. 2 drops his bags and reaches into his suit jacket as he scurries forward. By the time he reaches Perata, Yes Man No. 2 has the card out and is reading from it.
Yes Man No. 2 -- Got one here boss. It's from Demos Burden of Bakersfield.
Perata snootily accepts the card, then passes it to the clerk. Clerk runs card.
Clerk (avers) -- Nope. This one's maxed out.
Clerk passes card back to Perata. Perata with an angry look hands card to Yes Man No. 2 then shoos him away with a wave of the hand. Perata turns his head towards Nunez, shrugs slightly and simultaneously gives Nunez a "shit happens" kind of look. Nunez immediately snaps his fingers for a card. Yes Man No. 3 scurries forth in same fashion as Yes Man No. 2.
Yes Man No. 3 (reading from credit card) -- Umm, this one belongs to Sage Procure from San Rafael.
Yes Man 3 hands card to Nunez, who then confidentally pushes it across the counter. Clerk sighs wearily, reluctantly runs card.
Clerk (avers) -- Same thing. Maxed out. (Annoyed tone) You guys have any cash?
Nunez turns toward Perata
Nunez (inquisitive tone, but not sheepish) -- Do you suppose we should be a little more careful with spending?
Perata (chiding) -- Of course not, we can have all the money we want. (Jovial tone with big grin) We're the government.
Perata and Nunez laugh heartily.
Screen changes to text with voice over: Tell the Legislature to reopen the budget and get it done right this time. Go to saveusfromdebtorsprison.com.
Instead, I'll jot down a devilish (at least I think so) little script for a 30-second TV commercial that Republicans could use if the budget stalemate goes into October.
Constitutionally the budget for the state of CA should be in place by July 1. The current record for not having a spending plan enacted is 67 days. That infamous document was signed Sept. 5, 2002 by then Gov. Gray Davis. The next year Arnold ushered Davis out of town.
Having the stalement continue into October is almost unthinkable, but in thinktankland, and with the politics of the situation, this just could be the year of the perfect storm:
1. Republicans aren't going to gain or lose a single seat in the legislature because a budget isn't passed.
2. Legislative Republicans want to extract a pound of flesh from the Governor for having stiffed them on global warming legislation.
3. The CA Republican Party could get decline-to-state voters to switch registration if it sticks to its "taxpayer defender" image and drops its "polluter protector" image.
# 3 is pure thinktank and has to do with Senate Republicans linking votes for the state's budget to changes they want made to the CA Environmental Quality Act. Tying the CEQA issue to the budget is a loser for Republicans because if the budget stalemate goes on for months it'll cost too much in outreach campaigns or be just plain old impossible to convince voters why these two issues should be linked. More importantly tying CEQA to the budget detracts from their winning issue: prudent spending. If the budget conference report gets reopened, an October signing isn't unlikely. At that point, the February presidential primary will be around the corner. Months of news stories and possibly issue ads reinforcing the CA GOP as the home for prudent spenders can only help get-out-the-vote efforts before the February primary. The benefits from those stories and ads should even spill over to the June primary and November general too.
OK, back to my idea for a 30-second TV commercial.
Scene: Check out counter at expensive looking department store around Christmas time.
Characters:
Don Perata -- Senate Pres. Pro Tem -- dressed in a mobster lookin' sharkskin pinstrip suit. No fedora.
Fabian Nunez -- Assembly Speaker -- attired in custom wool suit with expensive looking silk tie.
Yes Men and Women -- 10 or 15 hangers-on, also in fine sartorial fashion, all clutching stuffed shopping bags.
Department Store Clerk -- Someone old enough to look like he or she should be retired.
Opening screen: text plus voice over in tone of game show announcer - "The CA Legislature goes Christmas shopping. Starring your Senate President pro Tem Don Perata and your Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez." Quick fade to black. Opening scene: Perata and Nunez walking side by side approaching the clerk with their Yes Men and Women trailing closely. Perata and Nunez have "ignorance is bliss" type countenances. Yes Man No. 1 carries a humidor
Perata (to Nunez) -- Getting Arnie a humidor for Christmas was a great idea.
Nunez -- Yeah, he can put his cuban cigars in this one.
Yes Man No. 1 plops humidor on counter top. Departs meekly back to group
Clerk -- How would you like to pay for this?
Perata and Nunez (jovially and in unison) -- Credit card!
Perata snaps his fingers summoning for a credit card. Yes Man No. 2 drops his bags and reaches into his suit jacket as he scurries forward. By the time he reaches Perata, Yes Man No. 2 has the card out and is reading from it.
Yes Man No. 2 -- Got one here boss. It's from Demos Burden of Bakersfield.
Perata snootily accepts the card, then passes it to the clerk. Clerk runs card.
Clerk (avers) -- Nope. This one's maxed out.
Clerk passes card back to Perata. Perata with an angry look hands card to Yes Man No. 2 then shoos him away with a wave of the hand. Perata turns his head towards Nunez, shrugs slightly and simultaneously gives Nunez a "shit happens" kind of look. Nunez immediately snaps his fingers for a card. Yes Man No. 3 scurries forth in same fashion as Yes Man No. 2.
Yes Man No. 3 (reading from credit card) -- Umm, this one belongs to Sage Procure from San Rafael.
Yes Man 3 hands card to Nunez, who then confidentally pushes it across the counter. Clerk sighs wearily, reluctantly runs card.
Clerk (avers) -- Same thing. Maxed out. (Annoyed tone) You guys have any cash?
Nunez turns toward Perata
Nunez (inquisitive tone, but not sheepish) -- Do you suppose we should be a little more careful with spending?
Perata (chiding) -- Of course not, we can have all the money we want. (Jovial tone with big grin) We're the government.
Perata and Nunez laugh heartily.
Screen changes to text with voice over: Tell the Legislature to reopen the budget and get it done right this time. Go to saveusfromdebtorsprison.com.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Thinkin' bout bike trails
Tom Torlakson, a CA state senator from Antioch, has a bill SB 669. A link to its current text is here. From the bill language, Torlakson wants to build a bike/hiking trail through the Delta that would link to the San Francisco Bay Trail system. To pay for it, he's looking to put local bond measures on a ballot, perhaps a half or quarter cent sales tax increase for county voters to either approve or disapprove.
If Torlakson's bill gets passed and voters approve the money, we're one step closer to having a dedicated bike/hiking trail going from SF to Tahoe. The Torlakson trail would link to the American River Bike Trail which goes to Folsom. From there its only another 60 or 70 miles to Tahoe.
A SF to Tahoe bike trail kinda of seems like pie in the sky today, but I'm seeing pieces scattered around that could fit together after a few years of hard work. Call me a dreamer. Anyone else out there walking around with rose colored glasses on?
Other than the cost and potential eminent domain issues for the right of way, the Torlakson Bay/Delta Trail is a political cake walk compared with the North Coast Rail Authority which is sitting on hundreds of miles of unused right-of-way through the redwoods. A rough map of the right-of-way is here. If I get time tomorrow, I'll lay out some of what I know about trying to turn that right of way into a bike/hiking trail. It's a long story and a worthwhile effort.
Cheers all.
If Torlakson's bill gets passed and voters approve the money, we're one step closer to having a dedicated bike/hiking trail going from SF to Tahoe. The Torlakson trail would link to the American River Bike Trail which goes to Folsom. From there its only another 60 or 70 miles to Tahoe.
A SF to Tahoe bike trail kinda of seems like pie in the sky today, but I'm seeing pieces scattered around that could fit together after a few years of hard work. Call me a dreamer. Anyone else out there walking around with rose colored glasses on?
Other than the cost and potential eminent domain issues for the right of way, the Torlakson Bay/Delta Trail is a political cake walk compared with the North Coast Rail Authority which is sitting on hundreds of miles of unused right-of-way through the redwoods. A rough map of the right-of-way is here. If I get time tomorrow, I'll lay out some of what I know about trying to turn that right of way into a bike/hiking trail. It's a long story and a worthwhile effort.
Cheers all.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Note to self
Don't stay at bar past your bedtime then come home and leave comments on The Mothership. While the intentions may be good, obsequious risk is high
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Dee, tuh, dee
So now's the time of year in CA when next year's budget gets negotiated. I think the heads of state are looking at somewhere around $102 to $103 billion in general fund spending.
One of the sticking points is money for our thirsty state's water needs. Developers and their friends in the legislature want funds for dams or underground storage. Environmentalists and their friends in the legislature want funds for conservation efforts.
The Governor likes the idea of building more dams. In fact, in his proposed budget he included money for building two. He reasoned that dams will help us mitigate wild weather swings caused by global warming.
That just cracks me up. We need more dams because of global warming. Strategically, that's about the same as planning to swallow poison but dialing 911 before you do it.
One of the sticking points is money for our thirsty state's water needs. Developers and their friends in the legislature want funds for dams or underground storage. Environmentalists and their friends in the legislature want funds for conservation efforts.
The Governor likes the idea of building more dams. In fact, in his proposed budget he included money for building two. He reasoned that dams will help us mitigate wild weather swings caused by global warming.
That just cracks me up. We need more dams because of global warming. Strategically, that's about the same as planning to swallow poison but dialing 911 before you do it.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Ride a Bike Save the World
Despite the jingoistic title on this post, I do believe there's a kernel of truth in that bumper sticker message (kinda relates to my use less oil, win the war in Iraq and overall war on terror ponderings - see, if you want, "Plain as the nose on your face" post below).
But this story here from today's LA Times is just one more spoke in the "Ride a Bike Save the World" wheel. Bamboo bikes. Who'd thunk it?
I'm kinda tongue-in-cheek on this one. Kinda not.
-------
In the ride a bike have some fun category, Saturday was the Specialized/Sierra Nevada Crit (that's my team's race). It wasn't fun getting schooled by Safeway, again, but talking afterwards with my teammates it feels like we came away with a better understanding of how to race together. Sometimes I get caught in a myopic trap thinking there's only one way to read a race as it's unfolding. Then I get unduly frustrated when it looks to me like a teammate isn't doing his assigned job.
But you know what, there are as many points of view on how a race is unfolding as there are bikes in the peleton. What's important is to trust your teammate. If things don't go according to plan, so what, time to ad lib.
And as far as getting the job done goes, I fell short on Saturday. Peter Allen started his lead out for me with about 2/3s of the last lap to go and mashed through the backstrectch at 34 mph, which was burning fast for the wind conditions. It was the best lead out I've had in my life, then I chundered the sprint by waiting too long to jump and got beat to the hole shot by someone.
Guys, if you're reading this, I shouldn't have said we rode poorly as a team. It wasn't a perfect race, but to me, it was encouraging. So onto Burlingame.
----
"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more." (Henry V)
But this story here from today's LA Times is just one more spoke in the "Ride a Bike Save the World" wheel. Bamboo bikes. Who'd thunk it?
I'm kinda tongue-in-cheek on this one. Kinda not.
-------
In the ride a bike have some fun category, Saturday was the Specialized/Sierra Nevada Crit (that's my team's race). It wasn't fun getting schooled by Safeway, again, but talking afterwards with my teammates it feels like we came away with a better understanding of how to race together. Sometimes I get caught in a myopic trap thinking there's only one way to read a race as it's unfolding. Then I get unduly frustrated when it looks to me like a teammate isn't doing his assigned job.
But you know what, there are as many points of view on how a race is unfolding as there are bikes in the peleton. What's important is to trust your teammate. If things don't go according to plan, so what, time to ad lib.
And as far as getting the job done goes, I fell short on Saturday. Peter Allen started his lead out for me with about 2/3s of the last lap to go and mashed through the backstrectch at 34 mph, which was burning fast for the wind conditions. It was the best lead out I've had in my life, then I chundered the sprint by waiting too long to jump and got beat to the hole shot by someone.
Guys, if you're reading this, I shouldn't have said we rode poorly as a team. It wasn't a perfect race, but to me, it was encouraging. So onto Burlingame.
----
"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more." (Henry V)
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Better than a stick in the eye
The first half of Sunday's 60-minute EMC geezer crit was about as exciting as a single's bar in a retirement community. Minor attempts at friskiness, but really, there's no point.
I had a lousy view once the action started. According to the AMD-geezerifics blog Safeway's Chris Wire went for a prime with AMD's Larry Nolan in tow and they got a gap on the field. Guys at the front who knew a good thing when they saw it started going across. Some went solo, others went in small groups. After a lap or two, the break had 13 or 14 riders. Having my head up my ass made for the lousy view and made it difficult to pedal, so I didn't go across. Luckily, however, my teammate Jason Brown wasn't suffering a similar condition and he got up there.
I spent the next five minutes or so extracting my melon and patrolling the front while AMD and another team I didn't recognize set tempo for the field. Meanwhile, the break split into two groups with seven in the lead group.
Now I was really mad at myself. I knew there was no way to make it to the front group of seven. Almost every strongman in the race was up there: Wire, Nolan, Bosch, Reaney, etc. Even if the field got organized, it would have probably taken 10 guys rotating at the front just to catch those seven and the odds of getting 10 geezers from different teams to organize a chase are about as good as Liebold hiring a Nobel Laureate for temp help instead of a carnival worker. (I only kid because I love)
With about 15 or 20 minutes to go the field had gained ground on the chase group. The bridge to the chase group looked like a job for two instead of one so I started hoping for someone to take strong flyer that I could to latch onto. Instead of cathcing a flyer, John Ashe, who's listed as unattached on the results page, just rolled off the front and I went with him. The field let us go and we got across to the chase group. The bridge brought me back to my teammate Brown, but we didn't stay reunited long.
Ashe attacked the chase group and created a five man split: Me; Ashe; Jeff Poulsen (Safeway); Kyle Glerum (Safeway); and Richard Jaurez (it says Pasadena Athletic Assoc on the results page, but he was wearing Merrill Lynch gear).
We did three or four laps all gentlemanly like, then the five-to-go cards came out. Ashe and Juarez started the attacking. Dumb ass me would let myself be on a Safeway wheel, so when the attacks came the Safeway wheel I was on would let a gap form, while the other jumped with the attack. I doubt Safeway was targeting me to take off the back, I just happened to be the one susceptible to the tactic.
So the five of us did the attack and counter attack dance for the last four laps. On the last lap we played a little cat and mouse then with about 500 to go Juarez jumped. The four of us covered. Poulsen jumped right before the last corner with about 300 to go and held us off for eighth place. I came in 9th.
I wish I knew what happened in the lead group of seven. Anyway here's the top 15 from the EMC results page:
Men - Cat 1/2/3 - Master - 35-99
1 (1 - Cat1) Lawrence Nolan 26205 AMD-Discovery Channel Cycling
2 (2 - Cat1) Chris Wire 152176 SAFEWAY/G.A.Communications
3 (3 - Cat1) Andres Gil 171882 Pacific State Bank/Anderson Homes Cyclin
4 (1 - Cat2) Brian Bosch 40703 Central Valley Cycling
5 (2 - Cat2) Joel Robertson 220316 Kaiser Permanente/ Team Oakland Cycling
6 (3 - Cat2) Eric Easterling 79101 Central Valley Cycling
7 (4 - Cat2) Steve Reaney 133288 California Giant Berry Farms/Specialized
8 (5 - Cat2) Jeff Poulsen 28533 SAFEWAY/G.A.Communications
9 (6 - Cat2) John Fairbanks 83306 Specialized/Sierra Nevada
10 (7 - Cat2) John Ashe 43660 Unattached
11 (8 - Cat2) Kyle Glerum 195470 SAFEWAY/G.A.Communications
12 (9 - Cat2) Richard Juarez 71186 Pasadena Athletic Assoc (PAA)
13 (10 - Cat2) Joseph Oliveri 26674 EMC2/Vellum Cycles
14 (11 - Cat2) Jason Brown 53115 Specialized/Sierra Nevada
15 (4 - Cat1) William Innes 52412 AMD-Discovery Channel Masters
I had a lousy view once the action started. According to the AMD-geezerifics blog Safeway's Chris Wire went for a prime with AMD's Larry Nolan in tow and they got a gap on the field. Guys at the front who knew a good thing when they saw it started going across. Some went solo, others went in small groups. After a lap or two, the break had 13 or 14 riders. Having my head up my ass made for the lousy view and made it difficult to pedal, so I didn't go across. Luckily, however, my teammate Jason Brown wasn't suffering a similar condition and he got up there.
I spent the next five minutes or so extracting my melon and patrolling the front while AMD and another team I didn't recognize set tempo for the field. Meanwhile, the break split into two groups with seven in the lead group.
Now I was really mad at myself. I knew there was no way to make it to the front group of seven. Almost every strongman in the race was up there: Wire, Nolan, Bosch, Reaney, etc. Even if the field got organized, it would have probably taken 10 guys rotating at the front just to catch those seven and the odds of getting 10 geezers from different teams to organize a chase are about as good as Liebold hiring a Nobel Laureate for temp help instead of a carnival worker. (I only kid because I love)
With about 15 or 20 minutes to go the field had gained ground on the chase group. The bridge to the chase group looked like a job for two instead of one so I started hoping for someone to take strong flyer that I could to latch onto. Instead of cathcing a flyer, John Ashe, who's listed as unattached on the results page, just rolled off the front and I went with him. The field let us go and we got across to the chase group. The bridge brought me back to my teammate Brown, but we didn't stay reunited long.
Ashe attacked the chase group and created a five man split: Me; Ashe; Jeff Poulsen (Safeway); Kyle Glerum (Safeway); and Richard Jaurez (it says Pasadena Athletic Assoc on the results page, but he was wearing Merrill Lynch gear).
We did three or four laps all gentlemanly like, then the five-to-go cards came out. Ashe and Juarez started the attacking. Dumb ass me would let myself be on a Safeway wheel, so when the attacks came the Safeway wheel I was on would let a gap form, while the other jumped with the attack. I doubt Safeway was targeting me to take off the back, I just happened to be the one susceptible to the tactic.
So the five of us did the attack and counter attack dance for the last four laps. On the last lap we played a little cat and mouse then with about 500 to go Juarez jumped. The four of us covered. Poulsen jumped right before the last corner with about 300 to go and held us off for eighth place. I came in 9th.
I wish I knew what happened in the lead group of seven. Anyway here's the top 15 from the EMC results page:
Men - Cat 1/2/3 - Master - 35-99
1 (1 - Cat1) Lawrence Nolan 26205 AMD-Discovery Channel Cycling
2 (2 - Cat1) Chris Wire 152176 SAFEWAY/G.A.Communications
3 (3 - Cat1) Andres Gil 171882 Pacific State Bank/Anderson Homes Cyclin
4 (1 - Cat2) Brian Bosch 40703 Central Valley Cycling
5 (2 - Cat2) Joel Robertson 220316 Kaiser Permanente/ Team Oakland Cycling
6 (3 - Cat2) Eric Easterling 79101 Central Valley Cycling
7 (4 - Cat2) Steve Reaney 133288 California Giant Berry Farms/Specialized
8 (5 - Cat2) Jeff Poulsen 28533 SAFEWAY/G.A.Communications
9 (6 - Cat2) John Fairbanks 83306 Specialized/Sierra Nevada
10 (7 - Cat2) John Ashe 43660 Unattached
11 (8 - Cat2) Kyle Glerum 195470 SAFEWAY/G.A.Communications
12 (9 - Cat2) Richard Juarez 71186 Pasadena Athletic Assoc (PAA)
13 (10 - Cat2) Joseph Oliveri 26674 EMC2/Vellum Cycles
14 (11 - Cat2) Jason Brown 53115 Specialized/Sierra Nevada
15 (4 - Cat1) William Innes 52412 AMD-Discovery Channel Masters
Monday, May 28, 2007
Plain as the nose on your face
I'm wondering why hasn't anyone in the public's eye started clamoring for an end to the Iraq War and the overall War on Terror by having our nation use less oil?
Islamic terrorists will continue to threaten us. But if we decrease terrorism's ultimate revenue source, oil, the number of terrorists will decrease proportionally.
I wonder how long it would take for our nation to meet its foreign policy goals in the Middle East after the region's leaders got the message that the world's biggest economy and the biggest oil consumer is serious about using other sources of energy besides oil.
This War on Terror is so needlessly tragic. The jihadists say they just want our nation out of the Middle East. We can't get out of the Middle East since, as our president says, "America is addicted to oil."
Why aren't there solar panels on every rooftop in sunny states? Why aren't there more windfarms? Why aren't we driving more electrical, hybrid or fuel cell powered cars?
Oh yeah, the cost. Well gee, there's a thing called economy of scale. Henry Ford didn't invent the internal combustion engine. There were cars long before the Model T. Ford, however, did come up with the idea for assembly line production, which in turn, made the production of cars cheaper, which in turn, reduced the car's market price, which in turn, made cars affordable for most Americans. Economy of scale.
I'm in the limited government camp. Although I do believe that in some cases national interest supercedes free market principles. If we can reduce terrorism's financing, that's a big national interest in my book and a good enough reason for the federal government to help alternative fuel industries reach economies of scale.
The federal government is already giving away tax write offs for buying alternatively fueled cars. Let's extend the program's sunset date, boost its funding and let's make sure everyone in the country knows about the write offs. Let's get creative. Anything that can reduce our nation's addiction to oil should be one of our government's highest priorities.
President Bush recently signed a $100 billion Iraq War funding bill. Sixty Minutes did a piece in Feb. 2006 which began, "The United States has spent more than a quarter of a trillion dollars during its three years in Iraq."
$850 billion in taxpayer money on Iraq. $50 billion of that sum spent on tax breaks for Americans or other programs aimed at reducing oil consumption would have done more to end the Iraq War and the overall War on Terror than anything else except for soldier's equipment.
Yes, ensuring Iraq has electricity, adequate hospitals and other necessary infrastructure is important. But we can help rebuild Iraq'a infrastructe at a fraction of the cost once Iraq is no longer a war zone. And the fastest way to change Iraq's war zone status is to start threatening the livlihoods of Middle Eastern leaders.
If the United States spends $50 billon on reducing its oil consumption, I bet that gets the attention of Middle Eastern leaders.
First, if I'm a bad guy leader who's funding terrorism, I just lost some sales and I don't have as much money to give to my jihadists.
Second, if I'm a good guy leader who's source of riches and power is derived from oil, I start cracking down on jihadists inside my borders because they're bad for business.
But we as a nation barely do anything to threaten a Middle Eastern leader's source of riches and power, so why should we expect any of them to do anything about terrorism? Middle Eastern leaders want to help us because we're the world's remaining superpower and they want to retain good diplomatic relationships with us? Please.
If the United States got serious politically about reducing our dependence on oil, terrorism could be less of a concern and there certainly wouldn't need to be a "war" against it.
Islamic terrorists will continue to threaten us. But if we decrease terrorism's ultimate revenue source, oil, the number of terrorists will decrease proportionally.
I wonder how long it would take for our nation to meet its foreign policy goals in the Middle East after the region's leaders got the message that the world's biggest economy and the biggest oil consumer is serious about using other sources of energy besides oil.
This War on Terror is so needlessly tragic. The jihadists say they just want our nation out of the Middle East. We can't get out of the Middle East since, as our president says, "America is addicted to oil."
Why aren't there solar panels on every rooftop in sunny states? Why aren't there more windfarms? Why aren't we driving more electrical, hybrid or fuel cell powered cars?
Oh yeah, the cost. Well gee, there's a thing called economy of scale. Henry Ford didn't invent the internal combustion engine. There were cars long before the Model T. Ford, however, did come up with the idea for assembly line production, which in turn, made the production of cars cheaper, which in turn, reduced the car's market price, which in turn, made cars affordable for most Americans. Economy of scale.
I'm in the limited government camp. Although I do believe that in some cases national interest supercedes free market principles. If we can reduce terrorism's financing, that's a big national interest in my book and a good enough reason for the federal government to help alternative fuel industries reach economies of scale.
The federal government is already giving away tax write offs for buying alternatively fueled cars. Let's extend the program's sunset date, boost its funding and let's make sure everyone in the country knows about the write offs. Let's get creative. Anything that can reduce our nation's addiction to oil should be one of our government's highest priorities.
President Bush recently signed a $100 billion Iraq War funding bill. Sixty Minutes did a piece in Feb. 2006 which began, "The United States has spent more than a quarter of a trillion dollars during its three years in Iraq."
$850 billion in taxpayer money on Iraq. $50 billion of that sum spent on tax breaks for Americans or other programs aimed at reducing oil consumption would have done more to end the Iraq War and the overall War on Terror than anything else except for soldier's equipment.
Yes, ensuring Iraq has electricity, adequate hospitals and other necessary infrastructure is important. But we can help rebuild Iraq'a infrastructe at a fraction of the cost once Iraq is no longer a war zone. And the fastest way to change Iraq's war zone status is to start threatening the livlihoods of Middle Eastern leaders.
If the United States spends $50 billon on reducing its oil consumption, I bet that gets the attention of Middle Eastern leaders.
First, if I'm a bad guy leader who's funding terrorism, I just lost some sales and I don't have as much money to give to my jihadists.
Second, if I'm a good guy leader who's source of riches and power is derived from oil, I start cracking down on jihadists inside my borders because they're bad for business.
But we as a nation barely do anything to threaten a Middle Eastern leader's source of riches and power, so why should we expect any of them to do anything about terrorism? Middle Eastern leaders want to help us because we're the world's remaining superpower and they want to retain good diplomatic relationships with us? Please.
If the United States got serious politically about reducing our dependence on oil, terrorism could be less of a concern and there certainly wouldn't need to be a "war" against it.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Don't think, meat
Perfect little thinktank moment while crushing the pedals during Sunday's Modesto road race. About 10 miles into a 63 mile race, there's a break of three up the road which includes my teammate Peter Allen.
Someone punches it in a crosswind section creating havoc in the peleton. We turn onto a tailwind section, still full hammer mode. Whoever was on front relents for a moment and one of the strongmen left in the field, Bubba Melcher, gets on his bad motor scooter. I jump onto Bubba's wheel and we're off. Bubba pulls at 36 mph for a long time, then lets off the gas just for a second as if to say to me, "well, I ain't draggin' your ass all the way up there."
Before pulling through, I check under my arm and it's "Clean Up! Aisle Six!" Tiny groups of what was once the peleton litter the road like broken eggs on a grocery store floor. My brain starts chewin' on: helping put Bubba into the break would probably cement the break's success, but right now Peter has at least a 33% chance of winning from a break of three. Is Bubba a good addition or bad one?; if I don't help, how likely is Bubba to make it up there on his own?; if Bubba comes back to the pack, he'll certainly launch again, and he'll have other strongmen to help him. Will the break survive that condition?
Pondering those three scenarios in a blink of an eye didn't get me any closer to the answer I sought. So I decide to ask Bubba for his opinion.
Me: "So whaddya think?"
Bubba: "Don't think! Pedal!"
He was right of course. I'm still laughing at myself over that one.
Someone punches it in a crosswind section creating havoc in the peleton. We turn onto a tailwind section, still full hammer mode. Whoever was on front relents for a moment and one of the strongmen left in the field, Bubba Melcher, gets on his bad motor scooter. I jump onto Bubba's wheel and we're off. Bubba pulls at 36 mph for a long time, then lets off the gas just for a second as if to say to me, "well, I ain't draggin' your ass all the way up there."
Before pulling through, I check under my arm and it's "Clean Up! Aisle Six!" Tiny groups of what was once the peleton litter the road like broken eggs on a grocery store floor. My brain starts chewin' on: helping put Bubba into the break would probably cement the break's success, but right now Peter has at least a 33% chance of winning from a break of three. Is Bubba a good addition or bad one?; if I don't help, how likely is Bubba to make it up there on his own?; if Bubba comes back to the pack, he'll certainly launch again, and he'll have other strongmen to help him. Will the break survive that condition?
Pondering those three scenarios in a blink of an eye didn't get me any closer to the answer I sought. So I decide to ask Bubba for his opinion.
Me: "So whaddya think?"
Bubba: "Don't think! Pedal!"
He was right of course. I'm still laughing at myself over that one.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Just great
Barry Bonds hit a 400 foot laser last night for his 741st career home run. He's 14 shy of Hank Aaron's 755 record. There's a lot of flap about Bonds not deserving such a hallowed mark since anyone with an ounce of common sense knows he used performance enhancing drugs.
I don’t respect guys who take short cuts or their achievements, however, Bonds is just one player in a league full of cheaters. The pitchers are on steroids, or HGH, or whatever, just the same as Bonds.
Yeah, it's true the faster the pitch the further the hit. But it's also true that the faster the pitch the tougher it is to make contact.
Aaron set the mark for his day and age.
Unfortunately, Bonds will set the mark for ours.
Cheaters suck.
I don’t respect guys who take short cuts or their achievements, however, Bonds is just one player in a league full of cheaters. The pitchers are on steroids, or HGH, or whatever, just the same as Bonds.
Yeah, it's true the faster the pitch the further the hit. But it's also true that the faster the pitch the tougher it is to make contact.
Aaron set the mark for his day and age.
Unfortunately, Bonds will set the mark for ours.
Cheaters suck.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
McEwen - 300/ Haedo + 470
I'm sure something like that is going to be out there if JJ Haedo makes CSC's Tour de France squad, and man, I would love to get down on the money line for Haedo winning the green jersey. His freaking lead out man is going to be none other than Paris/Roubaix winner Stuart O'Grady! Before O'Grady rocked the cobbles Sunday he and Haedo were in CA for our little bike race. On the stage finishing in Sacramento, O'Grady led out Haedo from so far back I couldn't see where the lead out began from my vantage point at the finish line. And on the TV coverage, O'Grady and Haedo just appear on screen out of nowhere making everyone else look like they're standing still. O'Grady blew past Luca Paolini, Thor Hushovd and George Hincapie before dropping Haedo off with less than 200 to go. It was text book. At the line Haedo had put five bike lenghts on Paolini and seven or so on Thor.
Granted, that was the Tour of California. Even if Haedo makes the TDF squad he still has to finish the race for a degenerate like me to cash in on his efforts. It's a big risk to bet that a sprinter who was racing in North America last year will make it through the mountains to the Champs d Elysee. But still, with O'Grady as his lead out man, Haedo winning the green is an attractive proposition. I haven't bet on bike racing, yet, but I do have some experience with football. I'd guess McEwen would be the favorite somewhere around bet $300 to win $100. That'd put Haedo, who's probably low- to mid-pack among green jersey contenders, somewhere around bet $100 to win $470.
Great odds, just need to find a book.
Granted, that was the Tour of California. Even if Haedo makes the TDF squad he still has to finish the race for a degenerate like me to cash in on his efforts. It's a big risk to bet that a sprinter who was racing in North America last year will make it through the mountains to the Champs d Elysee. But still, with O'Grady as his lead out man, Haedo winning the green is an attractive proposition. I haven't bet on bike racing, yet, but I do have some experience with football. I'd guess McEwen would be the favorite somewhere around bet $300 to win $100. That'd put Haedo, who's probably low- to mid-pack among green jersey contenders, somewhere around bet $100 to win $470.
Great odds, just need to find a book.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Bran muffins for breakfast
I'm a pretty regular guy who likes a regular routine. I wave hi on my way to work each day to the same neighbors taking a walk. I park in the same spot on the 4th floor of the city garage. But today marks the first unnerving occasion concerning my morning routine. Every day about a half hour before lunch I grab the sports page and take a trip to the reading room. All this week I've been sharing the library with a man on my floor who has to be in his seventies. I'm sorry but something ruins a soon to be middle aged guy's most peaceful part of the day when there's a septugenarian nearby who's on the same bodily function schedule. I guess all that's left for me to look forward to now is moving my office closer to the end of the hall in case of emergencies.
Publicity hounds and media jackals
Listed among the Bay Area events reporters may want to cover today is the US citizenship ceremony where Odessa Gunn, wife of "famed cyclist Levi Leipheimer," will become a naturalized citizen. The 10 a.m. ceremony is in SF at the Masonic Auditorium and "reporters interested in interviewing Gunn should arrive at 9:30 a.m."
Sharon Rummery is the contact for the event. Typically the contact is a public relations person.
I'll try to refrain as much as possible from asking questions on this blog without at least providing some half-baked answer, but in this case I don't understand the overall PR angle.
Is this the work of Levi's PR folks keeping Levi's name in the news and bolstering his image as a Bay Area celebrity in a run up to what will hopefully be Levi's fantastic run in this year's Tour de France?
Is Odessa making a PR run herself, a la Spice Beckham, prior to launching a line of clothes, fragrances, etc.?
Maybe someone in the cycling community can help me see the overall picture here.
In totally unrelated news, there's a front page story in today's Wall Street Journal headlined "Amgen's Star Fades Amid Safety Questions." The story says Amgen has lost $20 billion in market cap after regulators placed a "black box warning" March 9 on labels of Amgen's amenia drugs including EPO. Amgen's CEO notes "that more than 50 studies show the anemia drugs are safe when used according to the label."
OK, one more question sans half-baked answer: "Does the EPO label list blood boosting for cyclists among the drug's recommended uses?"
Sharon Rummery is the contact for the event. Typically the contact is a public relations person.
I'll try to refrain as much as possible from asking questions on this blog without at least providing some half-baked answer, but in this case I don't understand the overall PR angle.
Is this the work of Levi's PR folks keeping Levi's name in the news and bolstering his image as a Bay Area celebrity in a run up to what will hopefully be Levi's fantastic run in this year's Tour de France?
Is Odessa making a PR run herself, a la Spice Beckham, prior to launching a line of clothes, fragrances, etc.?
Maybe someone in the cycling community can help me see the overall picture here.
In totally unrelated news, there's a front page story in today's Wall Street Journal headlined "Amgen's Star Fades Amid Safety Questions." The story says Amgen has lost $20 billion in market cap after regulators placed a "black box warning" March 9 on labels of Amgen's amenia drugs including EPO. Amgen's CEO notes "that more than 50 studies show the anemia drugs are safe when used according to the label."
OK, one more question sans half-baked answer: "Does the EPO label list blood boosting for cyclists among the drug's recommended uses?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)