Today is the last day of the youth basketball season. I hope my team wins, but they're up against a good team. After today, I'm not sure what I'm going to do with my 2010 Saturdays.
Update: my team lost, but all of them had fun. As usual, I had one parent who expected me to be overly tough with his son, even though his son just didn't have the physical development necessary to do certain things. Boys tend to develop in quick spurts, whereas girls seem to have a more steady physical progression. On any given team, one boy could be miles ahead of the other boys in terms of athleticism, while another boy could have major difficulty learning to pivot or even to dribble. In any case, I'm not going to bother a kid on the last day of the season if he's doing something unconventional. He can always refresh his skills the next year, right? Sigh.
On the bright side, two parents left me nice messages thanking me for coaching.
"And if an epitaph be my story, I'd have a short one ready for my own: I had a lover's quarrel with the world." -- Robert Frost
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
George Washington Quote on Religion
From THIS LINK, General Washington's statement 'To the General Committee, representing the United Baptist Churches in Virginia':
If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the Convention where I had the honor to preside might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it; and if I could now conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny and every species of religious persecution. For, you doubtless remember, I have often expressed my sentiments that any man, conducting himself as a good citizen and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience. While I recollect with satisfaction, that the religious society of which you are members have been, throughout America, uniformly and almost unanimously the firm friends to civil liberty, and the persevering promoters of our glorious revolution, I cannot hesitate to believe that they will be the faithful supporters of a free yet efficient general government. Under this pleasing expectation, I rejoice to assure them that they may rely upon my best wishes and endeavors to advance their prosperity,'
I am, gentlemen, your most obedient servant, GEORGE WASHINGTON.'
"The horrors of spiritual tyranny"? I can't believe I haven't seen those words before. Beautiful language, isn't it?
If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the Convention where I had the honor to preside might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it; and if I could now conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny and every species of religious persecution. For, you doubtless remember, I have often expressed my sentiments that any man, conducting himself as a good citizen and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience. While I recollect with satisfaction, that the religious society of which you are members have been, throughout America, uniformly and almost unanimously the firm friends to civil liberty, and the persevering promoters of our glorious revolution, I cannot hesitate to believe that they will be the faithful supporters of a free yet efficient general government. Under this pleasing expectation, I rejoice to assure them that they may rely upon my best wishes and endeavors to advance their prosperity,'
I am, gentlemen, your most obedient servant, GEORGE WASHINGTON.'
"The horrors of spiritual tyranny"? I can't believe I haven't seen those words before. Beautiful language, isn't it?
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Roger Ebert on the Gathering Storm
Roger Ebert inspired by Thomas Friedman leads to an interesting post:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/02/the_gathering_storm.html
Here is the comment I tried to post on Ebert's blog:
I am agog at how many people have shared their stories and opinions. As for me, I don't have much to say except this: no system will work, including universal or for-profit healthcare, unless people are ethical.
Today, in almost every profession, incentives tend to push people, even good ones, into poor decisions. For example, if you're a doctor who gets reimbursed based on the number of tests you order, why not order an extra one? Does this attitude change under universal healthcare? Of course not. The only difference is who pays for it.
Conservatives understand human nature's tendency to game systems and are afraid that universal healthcare represents a massive opportunity for dishonest people to game the system and pass the buck (literally :-) Liberals, on the other hand, see the poor man in the street dying from a treatable chronic disease, or the cancer patient who can't get treatment, and are outraged. They want things to change. Neither side seems to understand that the incentives in healthcare need to change in order to promote ethics and a sustainable system.
When I see people argue in broad terms, I see no opportunity for real agreement. I am reminded of Yates: "Turning and turning in the widening gyre..."
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/02/the_gathering_storm.html
Here is the comment I tried to post on Ebert's blog:
I am agog at how many people have shared their stories and opinions. As for me, I don't have much to say except this: no system will work, including universal or for-profit healthcare, unless people are ethical.
Today, in almost every profession, incentives tend to push people, even good ones, into poor decisions. For example, if you're a doctor who gets reimbursed based on the number of tests you order, why not order an extra one? Does this attitude change under universal healthcare? Of course not. The only difference is who pays for it.
Conservatives understand human nature's tendency to game systems and are afraid that universal healthcare represents a massive opportunity for dishonest people to game the system and pass the buck (literally :-) Liberals, on the other hand, see the poor man in the street dying from a treatable chronic disease, or the cancer patient who can't get treatment, and are outraged. They want things to change. Neither side seems to understand that the incentives in healthcare need to change in order to promote ethics and a sustainable system.
When I see people argue in broad terms, I see no opportunity for real agreement. I am reminded of Yates: "Turning and turning in the widening gyre..."
Monday, March 8, 2010
Random Note about the NBA
Matt Barnes = the new, improved Raja Bell. If you're an NBA fan who watched the Orlando/Lakers game yesterday, you know what I'm talking about. By the way, Mr. Barnes is a Santa Clara, CA native. So Steve Nash and Matt Barnes...representing Santa Clara, California. I guess Gary Payton and Jason Kidd would represent Oakland, CA. I'm not sure who would represent San Francisco, CA.
Barry Ritholtz on Madoff
As usual, Barry Ritholtz gets it right:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/03/what-were-the-actual-losses-in-madoffs-fraud/
Love the example about the trillion dollars. Doesn't it seem that "trillion" will be 2010's word of the year?
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/03/what-were-the-actual-losses-in-madoffs-fraud/
Love the example about the trillion dollars. Doesn't it seem that "trillion" will be 2010's word of the year?
Friday, March 5, 2010
Fiscally Conservative Democrats -- Not Necessarily a Contradiction
During one of the worst recessions in modern history, the senior citizens' lobby wanted to take $250 from working people and put the money into their own pockets. The measure failed, because the following Democratic Senators exercised restraint:
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennet (D-CO)
Carper (D-DE)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Nelson (D-NE)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Udall (D-CO)
Warner (D-VA)
Both of Colorado's Senators appear to have good financial sense.
Dianne Feinstein seems to have enough job security to vote against the lobby's demands. Sadly, Barbara Boxer voted for the bill and seems to be doing everything she can to lose to Republican Tom Campbell in the next California election.
Russ Feingold did the right thing (he seems to do that a lot).
To Bernie Sanders from Vermont, who sponsored the bill: you need to go back and re-take basic math. No cost-of-living adjustment means there was no significant reported inflation. If prices in general didn't go up, why do benefits for senior citizens have to go up? We already expanded prescription drug coverage under the Bush administration, and senior citizens are eligible for Medi-care. What, exactly, is the problem, as long as senior citizens don't spend excessively? If you have a beef with the reported inflation numbers, then you go and address that issue, but please don't run straight to the taxpayers every time you get a harebrained idea.
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennet (D-CO)
Carper (D-DE)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Nelson (D-NE)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Udall (D-CO)
Warner (D-VA)
Both of Colorado's Senators appear to have good financial sense.
Dianne Feinstein seems to have enough job security to vote against the lobby's demands. Sadly, Barbara Boxer voted for the bill and seems to be doing everything she can to lose to Republican Tom Campbell in the next California election.
Russ Feingold did the right thing (he seems to do that a lot).
To Bernie Sanders from Vermont, who sponsored the bill: you need to go back and re-take basic math. No cost-of-living adjustment means there was no significant reported inflation. If prices in general didn't go up, why do benefits for senior citizens have to go up? We already expanded prescription drug coverage under the Bush administration, and senior citizens are eligible for Medi-care. What, exactly, is the problem, as long as senior citizens don't spend excessively? If you have a beef with the reported inflation numbers, then you go and address that issue, but please don't run straight to the taxpayers every time you get a harebrained idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)