Sneaky Professional Sport Coaches

Just recently, there have been two major incidents - one in the NBA, one in the NFL - involving coaches pulling some interesting tricks to attempt to help their teams win the game. Jason Kidd, the head coach of the New Jersey Nets, intentionally made one of his players run into him in order to spill a cup of soda on the court to buy time to draw up a play for his team to run to try to win the game with a little under ten seconds left. The other incident was with the Pittsburgh Steelers' head coach Mike Tomlin, who is accused of intentionally standing on the field in the path of a Baltimore Ravens player who was running back a kickoff. Tomlin has called his situation an "inexcusable error", according to ESPN, while Kidd has admitted to intentionally spilling the drink, and has said he was "just trying to win."

Also recently, I read an article from ESPN on a former NBA coach who said that the trick pulled by Kidd was an old trick used by many coaches, as well as himself, and that there is no rule against spilling a drink, and that Kidd should not have been fined, especially the large amount he was fined ($50,000).

As far as the Kidd incident goes, I am not 100% sure how I feel about it. Part of me thinks it was a great strategy to get another timeout. The other part thinks that it is a very hard argument to make to say that it is okay to do such a thing. It is a difficult situation, and I credit him for having the courage to pull such a move.

In looking at the Tomlin situation, which occurred after the Kidd fiasco, I find it difficult to believe that it was on purpose. He is not an idiot, and he must have seen the fine that was given to Kidd for such an action. Also, if it were on purpose I feel that it is definitely not the same way of interfering with the game as Kidd. The Tomlin situation would be much more direct in impacting the game. Where Kidd was merely buying another timeout, Tomlin would be basically tackling the runner had he not jumped out of the way. A fine has not yet been placed on him, and he maintains his innocence regarding the situation.

Justin Bieber

Musically, I have never been a huge fan of Justin Bieber. I just don't take much pleasure from his songs. They're definitely aimed at early teen girls. Because of his huge superstar status, nearly everyone loves him or hates him. This tends to happen to nearly everyone who is able to reach the level that Bieber has. I think it would be fascinating to take a deeper look into that. Why is it that humans always adopt such strong opinions on people of high popularity without knowing much at all about the person themselves? I, myself, am not entirely sure, but Bieber is surely an example of this occurrence.

As far as the Anne Frank controversy goes, I am not too sure how I feel about it. I can sympathize with the second article on the controversy. However, as Dr. Herron told us, there is a contradiction between the two articles so who knows at this point. We might have to take a field trip to Anne Frank's house to figure out if Anne Frank idolized the biggest stars of her time for ourselves. Honestly, if she did and Bieber was this popular in her time, then I would most likely bet money that a young girl would have his picture on her wall, just as so many do now.

At the same time, however, I can see Bieber's ego within the situation. He didn't really have to make the visit about him. This is where you see the problems that develop with someone getting so much popularity at such a young age. I don't imagine that he always thought of himself so highly, but when the whole world is telling you that you're the best thing since sliced bread then you may start to believe them. At the end of the day though, I believe that personal responsibility is very important so it is his job to be level headed and humble. I do not believe the situation is as crazy as many have made it out to be, however.

The piece on Bieber's early life was very interesting to me. I never knew about his mother and his upbringing. It makes me happy to see that his mother made the best of her situation and turned her life around. God really does work in mysterious ways.

Johnson & Johnson Settlement

When I first heard about this incident, it seemed as if those who make baby products got busted for running drugs through them. I thought to myself, "Wow, that is pretty interesting." However, now I'm not so sure just how interesting it is. It seems as if Johnson & Johnson has illegally promoted one of their drugs (in a separate branch of their company) to young children and the elderly, and just like every other time a large company has done something that they aren't supposed to do, they are going to get away with it by paying their way out.

At $2.2 billion, this is the third largest pharmaceutical settlement in the history of the US, according to The New York Times. This seems like a very large sum of money, and to most people it is, but not to Johnson & Johnson, who, according to The New York Times, in one year, brought in $3.1 billion in revenue just off of the drug in question alone! And to make this number seem even smaller to them, this was only five percent of their total revenue for that year.

Now, I am not one who believes that people with money are evil, nor do I believe that they should have it stuck to them anytime that society gets the chance. However, I do believe that people should be held responsible for their actions, and that people should each be treated fairly under the law. I am not an expert on this exact case, it actually seems pretty confusing to me, but the article brings to mind all of the times I have heard of big companies throwing money at people in lawsuits and having them run away. I do not think that this is the best way to go about handling this. Someone should be held accountable personally, not a settlement that involves the handing over of a large sum of money. If we were to hold those at the top, as well as those who call the shots in the company, responsible for their actions, then I do not believe that we would see as much as this. These people tend to feel somewhat invincible or indestructible due to their status at the top. At the very least, Johnson & Johnson should've fired someone for this.

Tobacco in New York City

Just recently, New York City passed legislation to change the age that it is legal to purchase tobacco from 18 to 21. This is a victory for health enthusiasts across the country. New York City has also tried to limit soft drink sizes in the past. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has definitely been a big activist in the health area, so there is no question as to whether or not he intends to sign this bill into law.

Personally, I see no problem at all in trying to live healthier. I try to not eat too many things that are bad for me in order to be healthy. I also enjoy working out and playing football and basketball in order to be fit. However, I do not think that it is the government's place to force it upon us. This is an example of a lack of personal responsibility on account of the smokers themselves. I would support public leaders encouraging healthier lifestyle choices and a sense of respect for those around you who do not want to get second hand smoke, but I do not support them taking away the freedom of the people to make their own decisions.

Of course smoking is bad for you. I watched my grandma die of lung cancer from being a lifetime smoker when I was pretty young. That is why I, personally, don't do it, but the government is foolish to think that it will actually stop people from doing something that they really want to do. It is very easy to buy alcohol if you are under 21. Plus, in this case, it will be even easier because they will be allowed to possess it, just not purchase it. In over ninety percent of states, marijuana is still illegal for anyone to possess, much less purchase, however, in my experience, just about as many young people smoke marijuana as they do cigarettes.

The argument for this bill was, according to The New York Times, "that raising the age to buy cigarettes would discourage people from becoming addicted in the first place." I would argue that the first cigarette smoked by most is not one that they purchased on their own. People begin purchasing cigarettes after they have tried it a few times before. So now the only difference is going to be that these people must have someone else buy cigarettes for them when they want to smoke, or they will just obtain a fake ID and do it themselves.

Pirates

Whenever I think of pirates, I typically think of the movie Pirates of the Caribbean featuring Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow. Although it has been a while since I have seen that movie, and I do not remember much of the plot, I still associate the type of attire they wore in that movie and old wooden ships, as well as, gross, very mild zombielike people with the stereotype of a pirate. Buried treasure and the search for it also comes to mind when thinking about pirates.

The type of pirates mentioned above must be the old-school version, because the first time I ever heard of pirates in real life (and found out that they really exist) was when the Somalian pirates took over Captain Phillips's ship. If I'm not mistaken, that is what the new movie featuring Tom Hanks is about. Prior to the Somalian pirate incident, I did not realize that piracy (other than the technological meaning) was a real problem in the world. According to the New York Times article, Somali piracy is currently at a seven year low. This is good news for the east coast of Africa. However, on the west coast of Africa, particularly Nigeria, there is a different story. This is where, just a week ago, two Americans were abducted by Nigerian pirates off a US oil vessel.

In my opinion, the new-school pirates are not as cool as the old-school ones. The new pirates (or real ones) do not wear eyepatches, fight using cannons, pistols, and swords, and travel the seas in a wooden ship with a skull and crossbones flag in search of buried treasure, but rather wear raggedy shirts, carry assault rifles, abduct innocent people from ships, and hold them for ransom. This could, however, have been how pirates have always been, but the legends of the pirates of the past have twisted this truth into something completely different and much more interesting, rather than just savage-like and inhumane.

Government Shutdown and Debt Ceiling

The recent battle over the government shutdown and the debt ceiling serves as a wonderful illustration of where our country stands politically right now. Nearly every vote was split on party lines, and the ever-intensifying split in the GOP was seen throughout, not necessarily by vote, but by each side's words and attitudes toward one another. The cry for a third party is definitely getting louder amongst the Tea Party and Libertarians, as each favor much smaller government, are from the grassroots (which makes them more relatable to the people), and share many of the same views regarding liberty and freedom.

The cry for a third party, to me, is a healthy sign, as a third party would offer another option for Americans, strengthening democracy. One thing that is not so healthy, however, is something I read from the guardian article that we read on the shutdown. The Guardian wrote...

"Another Chinese tourist, on the National Mall with his fiancée, said he had not followed the politics of the fiscal crisis closely. "But this is what happens when you have two parties," he quipped. "One party is better.”"

This is a scary idea to me. A one party system may get things done much faster because there is no opposition, however, it is practically a dictatorship. The system of checks and balances may stop the government from operating at its full potential, but that is the way of a democracy. I find this very interesting, as I am learning about different political and government structures, as well as, democracy versus dictatorships in my world politics class.

One thing I have heard through most media outlets, including ESPN last night, is that it is the Republicans fault for shutting down the government because they failed to compromise. I can empathize with that view of the situation because it could certainly seem like that, (I also know that I may be a little biased, since I do consider myself a conservative at the end of the day) but I do not think that the Republicans were the ones refusing to compromise. Democrats, including the president, got everything they wanted out of the shutdown. Also, every bill written up by Republicans in the house was put down by Democrats in the senate. In addition to this, it was said many times that the president did not want to negotiate with Republicans. So Republicans were not the ones who were unwilling to negotiate, and ended up getting little to nothing (except for blame) out of the bill that finally ended the government shutdown and extended the debt ceiling.

As for the debt ceiling, it should not have been raised. The U.S. national debt is currently over $17,000,000,000,000. That is more than our current GDP. The current debt per citizen is nearly $54,000 and the current debt per taxpayer is nearly $149,000. The national debt is growing as we speak and it must be paid off eventually. It is time our government takes responsibility and only spends what they bring in. They must be held accountable now because the future is going to be rough with this debt hanging over for generations-to-come.

New York Biker Incident

The incident that occurred in New York including a family in a Range Rover versus a mass of bikers (NOT a biker gang, as explained in the article) is very interesting to me because I do not know how I feel, nor do I know how I should feel about the situation. In my eyes, the altercation can be described as a series of blame shifts from one party to the other, broken down like so:

• Initially, the bikers are to blame due to their disobedience of road laws, performing stunts and traveling at illegal speeds, as well as their plain lack of respect for other users of the road, gathering in masses that leave little to no room for other drivers.
• Next, the driver takes the blame when he bumps into the back of a motorcyclist.
• Then, the bikers regain blame when they surround the car, and intimidate the driver, who then is allowed to flee, since he feels threatened.
• After this, the driver takes back the blame in dramatic fashion, running over a biker who was helping the initially injured motorcyclist, and then speeding off.
• Finally, the bikers steal the blame back once and for all by chasing the man down, and, eventually, beating him up. 

As you can see, according to my analysis, blame is transferred four times here. The bikers begin and end with the blame so it should be easy to pin it down on them. However, if you look at the actual damage that was done here, you can see that the biker that was run over, fell into a coma, and is now paralyzed and won't be able to walk for the rest of his life. This is rather sad, considering he was helping out the initial fallen biker, and wasn't even part of the supposed mob that scared or spooked the driver, causing him to drive off so viciously. Also, the driver's beating wasn't too bad, I don't believe. It was described that he had minor injuries. His Range Rover suffered a pretty hard hit though. Bumping into bikers and having the window smashed is sure to do some damage to it.

The second article was somewhat confusing to me. It seems as if the NYPD officer they are speaking of, may have been involved with the biker group and contributed to the beating of the man. I am not 100% if that is correct though, possibly he was investigating the situation crookedly? I am not sure, as the article spoke more of his ties to infiltration of the Occupy Wall Street movement by the NYPD and his specific involvement. 

Occupy Wall Street is an interesting topic in itself. Described as an anti-capitalist movement, I am definitely far away from them ideologically, however, I can relate with their anger at the power and special treatments given to big corporations by government. In my opinion, this is what occurs when the establishment types in Washington are continued to be elected to their seats for so long, that they forget who they are actually there for, and begin to work for special interests, rather than the general public, as Adam Smith may say. This causes "Wall Street Giants" who are often kept afloat by government bailouts, and are not allowed to fail when practicing poor business techniques, as any small business would. This interferes with the "invisible hand", and does not allow the economy to regulate itself. The way I see it, this is a very crooked form of capitalism (if capitalism at all) and not a true free market economy.