the life
Tomorrow is the Pennsylvania primary, for which Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have been preparing for at least six weeks. Both campaigns have gotten pretty snippy at each other, and the general level of dialogue seems to have decayed with time. But that’s not what I care about with respect to this post. I just want to make a prediction and see how close I come. My prediction is Clinton wins by 10. Let’s see.
Today’s NCAA tournament action was much more compelling than yesterday’s. And the day isn’t even over yet. I’m specifically thinking of two games. San Diego beat UConn on a late basket with 1.2 seconds remaining in overtime. Western Kentucky beat Drake on a three-point basket as the buzzer sounded, also in overtime.
The twelve seed (Western Kentucky) beat the five seed, and the thirteen seed (San Diego) beat the four seed, both occurring in the West region. That means instead of the expected four-five matchup in the second round, we’ll get twelve-thirteen. Nice.
Of course I picked Drake and UConn to win those games. And while I’m disappointed with my poor picks, I’m not too torn up, because those upsets wrecked other peoples’ brackets much more than my own. Comparatively, I’m not in that bad of shape.
Even though the upsets busted up my bracket a bit, it was awesome to watch the end of both of those games live. I don’t know why, but I expect the team that’s down to make those shots. When it doesn’t happen, which is the case more often than not, it’s a little deflating. But when it does happen, it’s great. Today I fist-pumped and hollered like I actually went to either of those schools.
I argue these types of finishes are the primary reason why the NCAA tournament is one of the premier sporting events in America.
A severely disfigured French woman was found dead today, two days after a court ruled she could not legally opt to have a doctor euthanize her. The authorities are looking into the case to determine if there was any foul play.
Every time something like this comes up, I wonder, why in the hell is euthanasia illegal? The state basically takes control of a person’s body, not allowing that person to do something to his or her body that he or she would otherwise choose to do. That’s beyond ridiculous. It’s my body. Why can the state tell me what I can or can’t do to it?
Other situations where the state prevents someone from doing something with their body involve a third party potentially suffering. But who suffers in this case? Yes, this person’s family undoubtedly suffers with the loss of a loved one, but if that loved one chose to die, why is the state involved? And what if the decision was a family decision? What if the person decides they’re ready to die, and the family members agree if this is what the person wants then it should happen? The state still deems it illegal.
Granted, there’s not much the state can do to someone in the form of punishment after they’re dead. But criminalizing euthanasia makes it much more difficult to perform the practice in a safe and orderly fashion. Safe? How can someone die safely? Well, I can imagine some back-alley assisted suicide that doesn’t go according to plan and leaves the patient still alive but in even more pain and suffering than they otherwise would have been. And then you have issues of punishing loved ones who aid and abet the person who has chosen to end their life.
All of this becomes even clearer in this particular case. This woman was in horrible pain for years. As she put it, she wanted to die on her terms, rather than having her very rare form of cancer dictate to her when she was going to pass. Why is the state involved here? Why can’t this woman go to a reputable hospital and have a qualified doctor arrange to perform a safe and respectful euthanization?
I just don’t get it. The government is already too much involved in our day to day lives. And here’s one more situation where the state takes control of a person’s body and tells them what they are and are not allowed to do with it. It’s just ridiculous.
The Houston Rockets had won twenty two consecutive games, and in their bid to win their twenty third last night, they got crushed by the Boston Celtics.
I didn’t want to jinx the winning streak by saying anything while it’s still alive. It’s the second longest winning streak in NBA history, following the thirty three consecutive games won by the Los Angeles Lakers during the 1971-1972 season. The Milwaukee Bucks have the third longest streak, winning twenty consecutive games during the 1970-1971 season.
Both of those teams won the NBA championship. I would bet $100 the Houston Rockets will not. And I feel bad for saying it, since the Rockets are my team. I honestly have no idea how they won that many games in a row. They’re a decent team, for sure, but not a team for the ages. Not by a long shot.
In fact, I’m going to say the Rockets will struggle to make it out of the first round of the playoffs, if they even make it out of the first round. One of their two best players, Yao Ming, is out for the season. Yes, the last ten or so victories during the winning streak were without Yao, but that’s regular season basketball. You need the big guy in the playoffs.
Tracy McGrady is notorious for two things: (1) never winning a playoff series, and (2) having worse back problems than most seventy year old men in this country. I know it sounds like I’m ripping on my team. And I suppose I am. But I think the Rockets are getting everyone’s hopes up, and I hate seeing Houston get crushed by sports teams that let the city down. It’s no fun to watch.
So while I continue to root for the Rockets, I’m not one of those guys that’s expecting to see Tracy McGrady parading around the NBA championship trophy anytime soon.
Following the lead in a post at Talking Points Memo, I’ll reproduce an excerpt from The Trail, a blog at the Washington Post website:
Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives “taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.”
Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was “common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.” A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate’s ear. McCain then said: “I’m sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda.”
This gaffe may very well be innocent. But it’s an example of one of the things that infuriates me to no end about the situation in Iraq. The people who are making decisions about how many Americans die over there, and how much money American taxpayers spend, have very little understanding of some of the most basic facts. Everything is politics to these people, including John McCain. Everything is about how we can scare the American public into supporting our continued presence in a quagmire that is sucking lives and money with no end in sight. No need to spend the time learning what is actually happening on the ground in Iraq. As long as our men and women are stationed over there, and our politicians can continue to make “surprise” visits, everything will be okay.
It’s a big deal to throw around the term “Al Qaeda” willy nilly like John McCain does. It’s not just careless. It shows a lack of qualification for the job at hand. It’s not just an issue of vocabulary. There are some extremely important subtleties that are in flux on a day-to-day basis in Iraq. The country is teetering on a balance between order and chaos. And if our elected officials can’t take the time to learn who the main actors are, and from which geographical regions they are coming and to which they are going, how can we ever expect our presence there to lead to any form of “success”, however that term may be defined?
I don’t follow college basketball with nearly the fervor that I do college football, but as tournament time nears, I become a bit more engaged. This year is a little different, though. My Longhorns are ranked number five in the nation, and they just beat Kansas State last night at Kansas State. Texas basketball teams of years past would typically take a tough loss after catching some of the national limelight.
Last night’s game was broadcast on ESPN, so I took the opportunity to watch my first Texas basketball game of the season. I’ve kept up with the headlines here and there, so I know the Horns were having a good season, but it was interesting to actually see a game. Those guys are good. I don’t think they’re national championship good, but I can see an Elite Eight or possibly an outside shot at the Final Four.
I’m still surprised the team is so competitive without Kevin Durant. I like that, though, to be honest. Part of the reason I’m not as much into college basketball is all the one-and-done sensations that role through a college town for a single year, earn some awards and get some big wins, and then bolt for the NBA. At least in college football you’ll get three good seasons out of your student athletes. It’s easier for me to follow a team in that system, where I can actually expect to remember most of the guys on the team from year to year.
While it was great to have Durant for a year and all the attention that came with it, it’s interesting to watch a team without a “once in a decade” talent play really good basketball. When I join my annual, and very informal, college basketball pool, I’m just going to have to pick Texas to run the table and bring home the national championship. Do you know what it would do to my Texas fanhood if I went with a bracket I picked objectively (i.e. without Texas winning the national championship), and then they won? I couldn’t live it down.
So I’m putting my money where my mouth is and picking Texas to win it all. Go Horns!