LeBron James.
The name means something different today than it did a month ago, last season, or even the 2007 NBA Finals.
As a player, James has done remarkable things during the regular season. And, as a San Diego Chargers fan, I know a lot about remarkable regular seasons: They are usually meaningless when it comes to the grit and heart of the postseason.
As a man, James has proven he is not that. His antics resemble a man-child, who has never been told no. He also displays the characteristics of someone who has never dealt with adversity; he seems confused when challenged, as in the Celtics series, and reacts with a pout and a half-assed effort.
The truth is I kind of like James' playing style on the floor. But I despise his act on the sideline, and I find that defines him more to me. Remember the saying: act like you've been there before and act like you're going back. Well, James has never been there, if there is being a champion. His childish showboating brought down his team and looked even more ridiculous when he quit then failed in the playoffs in the past two seasons.
Bottom line, James: Win something, anything, up to and including and NBA championship. Until then keep your weak, insecure ego off the airwaves and television. The fact that so many care about a perennial loser is beyond me, yet ESPN couldn't help itself, and neither could sports talk radio across the country.
In my view, James can never be compared to the likes of Kobe Bryant. Bryant is a man, a warrior, and a champion. In other words, and in a historical sense, Bryant is a king. James is a lowly prince concerned more about dapper attire and his image. James has chosen to join a team of mercenaries consumed with the notion of overthrowing the reigning king. The Miami Heat are preparing their siege, but until they break through the castle wall and pull Bryant's hands from the Larry O'Brien trophy, they will be relegated to camping at the foot of the fortress, craning their necks to peer at heights they may never reach.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
The Interesting Tale of El Chavo del Ocho
NOTE: This is the first installment of a piece I am working on about a friend in the justice system. This excerpt is a portion of my notes written at his hearing June 24, 2010. I am transcribing the rest of the notes but it takes time. After the transcript of this hearing is complete, I will add the continuing pieces of the tale.
Judge Robert J. Kearney does his work in Superior Court, Dept. 6, Vista courthouse, North County San Diego. Judging by the hallway outside Dept. 6, Judge Kearney, and the other superior court judges, are very busy people.
At 8:27 a.m., the bailiff for Dept. 5 announces his department is open for business. Soon, I believe, Dept. 6 will open its doors. That is, unless there is a disturbance of some kind. El Chavo is capable of making a ruckus that could delay a court hearing.
A lawyer knocks on the door of Dept. 6 at 8:30, prompting the bailiff to open the door. It's a mixed court; thirty-three names are on the dry erase board, which serves as the docket. The bailiff and both counsels play a twisted game of tic-tac-toe.
Patrick McCoy seems to be a favorite public defender on the board. he assigned to upward of 12 cases. El Chavo has drawn McCoy. The direct proportion of cases assigned to the cases available causes me to believe that McCoy is not a horse I would bet on; he might be good, but he would be lucky to go off at 3/5, if not even money. I don't like these odds for the horses, and I surely don't like these odds for a man representing my friend.
El Chavo's case is a strange one, to me, at least. Drug law is a clear example of 'law as a business' because, in the Land of the Free, it seems contradictory to try to control a man's choice about using drugs or about using the drugs of his choosing. Yet, we, a courtroom full of people, sit to hear the fate of 33 'criminals'. A judge, who I assume might enjoy coffee, and perhaps a scotch, as much as the next man, will make the rulings for these 33. Coincidentally, there are 33 seats in the audience, filled to capacity with those waiting to be judged or those waiting to hear what will become of the family members, or friends.
I visited El Chavo on June 19, 2010, in the evening, on a Saturday, as those are the hours for Level 1 prisoners at the Vista Detention Facility. He told me of the strong coffee and pills he was being given. Coffee and pills to wake up in the morning and sleeping pills to knock him out at nightfall. He also was given drugs to help with alcohol withdrawal, which can be fairly bad for people who drink nothing but Bud Light, at a clip of three to 12 a day. This is, at least, the medical opinion of the county authorities.
Judge Robert J. Kearney does his work in Superior Court, Dept. 6, Vista courthouse, North County San Diego. Judging by the hallway outside Dept. 6, Judge Kearney, and the other superior court judges, are very busy people.
At 8:27 a.m., the bailiff for Dept. 5 announces his department is open for business. Soon, I believe, Dept. 6 will open its doors. That is, unless there is a disturbance of some kind. El Chavo is capable of making a ruckus that could delay a court hearing.
A lawyer knocks on the door of Dept. 6 at 8:30, prompting the bailiff to open the door. It's a mixed court; thirty-three names are on the dry erase board, which serves as the docket. The bailiff and both counsels play a twisted game of tic-tac-toe.
Patrick McCoy seems to be a favorite public defender on the board. he assigned to upward of 12 cases. El Chavo has drawn McCoy. The direct proportion of cases assigned to the cases available causes me to believe that McCoy is not a horse I would bet on; he might be good, but he would be lucky to go off at 3/5, if not even money. I don't like these odds for the horses, and I surely don't like these odds for a man representing my friend.
El Chavo's case is a strange one, to me, at least. Drug law is a clear example of 'law as a business' because, in the Land of the Free, it seems contradictory to try to control a man's choice about using drugs or about using the drugs of his choosing. Yet, we, a courtroom full of people, sit to hear the fate of 33 'criminals'. A judge, who I assume might enjoy coffee, and perhaps a scotch, as much as the next man, will make the rulings for these 33. Coincidentally, there are 33 seats in the audience, filled to capacity with those waiting to be judged or those waiting to hear what will become of the family members, or friends.
I visited El Chavo on June 19, 2010, in the evening, on a Saturday, as those are the hours for Level 1 prisoners at the Vista Detention Facility. He told me of the strong coffee and pills he was being given. Coffee and pills to wake up in the morning and sleeping pills to knock him out at nightfall. He also was given drugs to help with alcohol withdrawal, which can be fairly bad for people who drink nothing but Bud Light, at a clip of three to 12 a day. This is, at least, the medical opinion of the county authorities.
Community A-hole of the week (July 1)
This week's Community A-hole is California Assemblymember Martin Garrick, Republican, 74th District. Garrick, who is my assemblymember, was included on my mailing list when I sent out my most recent short sale hardship letter, in which I stated, "I am not a person who is looking for a handout, nor am I someone who falls for the current trends of jingoism, bigotry, or race blaming. I am accountable and aware of my actions."
A week after I sent out my letter, I received this letter from Garrick.
I could take on the letter issue by issue, but it is easier to read for yourself and to acknowledge that it falls in line with the Republican position on illegal immigration. Garrick's letter carefully avoids using the word Mexican and never mentions where the problem illegal immigrants are entering "our State." That's a good thing because I would hate to think that our national immigration policy was being steered to repel a specific ethnicity.
But, of course, that is what is happening. Arizona's law, while following the legal steps of probable cause and reasonable suspicion, is directed at one ethnicity: Mexicans and Latinos from Central and South America. Race is the prime, if not the exclusive, identifying characteristic from which Arizona state and municipal law enforcement can stop a suspected illegal immigrant. How else can it be done? Maybe U.S. Rep. Brian Bilbray can share his knowledge on how to identify an illegal immigrant.
Some have made the argument, then, that all law enforcement stops would then have to be racist. That may be true, but most crimes have other significant indicators that point to a suspect. Burglars, if contacted by law enforcement, would have answer the question as to why they are in a neighborhood (not their own) and why they are in possession of burglary tools and/or stolen property, and so on.
Race is used, and has been greatly misused, as an identification tool when it comes to crimes and those suspected of committing crimes. But, again, I keep coming back to how an illegal immigrant will be identified by state and local officials in Arizona. I fall back on my training in law enforcement (Palomar College Police Academy, Level II, Class 27-98R, fall 1998) as to what the identifiers will be, and I keep coming back to race and the belief that this law is directed solely toward Latinos.
State and local authorities have a bevy of laws to enforce (not like federal immigration authorities, who only enforce laws associated with immigration), and adding this law on top of those laws creates a difficult working environment at best. I remember from my academy training that it was made clear to my class that federal laws are just that: federal laws to be enforced by federal authorities. Our training officers told us that we will have our hands full with state and local laws; there would be no time for us to try and enforce federal statutes.
I feel sorry for Garrick, I really do, because it does not matter what he believes or what he feels in his soul, he is a politician in North San Diego County, an extremely conservative area of Southern California. In fact, now-reformed Republican strategist Kevin Phillips writes in his 1969 conservative playbook, "The Emerging Republican Majority," that regarding San Diego, "the city's 45,000 Negroes call their city 'the Mississippi of the West.'" (NOTE: If you can find a copy, read this book. Everything from Nixon's and Reagan's presidencies to the using of race and issue-oriented policies to divide the United States is outlined in this book. You'll have a new outlook on your role in our brand of democracy.)
Garrick writes he is honored to represent me in the Assembly. I have no doubt that he does, and I respect anyone who subjects themselves to the election process. I appreciate his willingness to go to Sacramento, although I don't agree with most of his political opinions. Yet, so much of politics is what one does with the power they are granted. Along with this power comes an opportunity to reflect on one's own stances, and whether these positions taken are lifting up people or holding them down.
Garrick's stand on illegal immigration holds people down, and limits their opportunities. The citizenship of these people does not matter. On this issue, I am ashamed of Garrick's stand. There is reciprocity in the illegal immigrant problem. It is economics, of course, and that is why it has been allowed to continue for such a long period of time. But the motivation behind this recent brand of racial bigotry is not rooted in economics. It is being packaged as such; however, Garrick does not explain what will occur once the 'cheap' labor pool is dried out. The synergy of this labor relationship will be ruined, and we will all feel the pinch.
One more personal note, my grandmother on my father's side was born in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico in 1913. She and her family illegally crossed into El Paso, TX, and then made their way to Southern California to work in agriculture. My grandmother was an illegal immigrant until she married an Irish military man and became a U.S. citizen. I am the descendant of an illegal Mexican immigrant. I think about my grandmother and Arizona, which she crossed to come to California. The what-ifs are numerous. In short, when I see what is happening in Arizona and when I get a letter such as the one from Garrick, I can't help but feel as if a part of me is not wanted in this country. And as long as the people and politicians continue to act as cowards, supporting and enacting laws that reflect their own insecurities, I will more and more feel as if I am not wanted here.
My solace, however, is my vote, which I cast in each election. My father tells me he takes great pride in knowing that his presidential vote cancels out Rush Limbaugh's vote, and I love that idea. I've made Mitch McConnell my huckleberry on the national scene.
Now, I need to find a vote to cancel in California. Should I find someone in news entertainment, the sickly phoenix that rose from the ashes of journalism? Or maybe some political bigwig? The answer is clear: I can take pride from here on knowing I cancel Assemblymember Garrick's vote. Garrick, you are my state-level huckleberry.
A week after I sent out my letter, I received this letter from Garrick.
I could take on the letter issue by issue, but it is easier to read for yourself and to acknowledge that it falls in line with the Republican position on illegal immigration. Garrick's letter carefully avoids using the word Mexican and never mentions where the problem illegal immigrants are entering "our State." That's a good thing because I would hate to think that our national immigration policy was being steered to repel a specific ethnicity.
But, of course, that is what is happening. Arizona's law, while following the legal steps of probable cause and reasonable suspicion, is directed at one ethnicity: Mexicans and Latinos from Central and South America. Race is the prime, if not the exclusive, identifying characteristic from which Arizona state and municipal law enforcement can stop a suspected illegal immigrant. How else can it be done? Maybe U.S. Rep. Brian Bilbray can share his knowledge on how to identify an illegal immigrant.
Some have made the argument, then, that all law enforcement stops would then have to be racist. That may be true, but most crimes have other significant indicators that point to a suspect. Burglars, if contacted by law enforcement, would have answer the question as to why they are in a neighborhood (not their own) and why they are in possession of burglary tools and/or stolen property, and so on.
Race is used, and has been greatly misused, as an identification tool when it comes to crimes and those suspected of committing crimes. But, again, I keep coming back to how an illegal immigrant will be identified by state and local officials in Arizona. I fall back on my training in law enforcement (Palomar College Police Academy, Level II, Class 27-98R, fall 1998) as to what the identifiers will be, and I keep coming back to race and the belief that this law is directed solely toward Latinos.
State and local authorities have a bevy of laws to enforce (not like federal immigration authorities, who only enforce laws associated with immigration), and adding this law on top of those laws creates a difficult working environment at best. I remember from my academy training that it was made clear to my class that federal laws are just that: federal laws to be enforced by federal authorities. Our training officers told us that we will have our hands full with state and local laws; there would be no time for us to try and enforce federal statutes.
I feel sorry for Garrick, I really do, because it does not matter what he believes or what he feels in his soul, he is a politician in North San Diego County, an extremely conservative area of Southern California. In fact, now-reformed Republican strategist Kevin Phillips writes in his 1969 conservative playbook, "The Emerging Republican Majority," that regarding San Diego, "the city's 45,000 Negroes call their city 'the Mississippi of the West.'" (NOTE: If you can find a copy, read this book. Everything from Nixon's and Reagan's presidencies to the using of race and issue-oriented policies to divide the United States is outlined in this book. You'll have a new outlook on your role in our brand of democracy.)
Garrick writes he is honored to represent me in the Assembly. I have no doubt that he does, and I respect anyone who subjects themselves to the election process. I appreciate his willingness to go to Sacramento, although I don't agree with most of his political opinions. Yet, so much of politics is what one does with the power they are granted. Along with this power comes an opportunity to reflect on one's own stances, and whether these positions taken are lifting up people or holding them down.
Garrick's stand on illegal immigration holds people down, and limits their opportunities. The citizenship of these people does not matter. On this issue, I am ashamed of Garrick's stand. There is reciprocity in the illegal immigrant problem. It is economics, of course, and that is why it has been allowed to continue for such a long period of time. But the motivation behind this recent brand of racial bigotry is not rooted in economics. It is being packaged as such; however, Garrick does not explain what will occur once the 'cheap' labor pool is dried out. The synergy of this labor relationship will be ruined, and we will all feel the pinch.
One more personal note, my grandmother on my father's side was born in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico in 1913. She and her family illegally crossed into El Paso, TX, and then made their way to Southern California to work in agriculture. My grandmother was an illegal immigrant until she married an Irish military man and became a U.S. citizen. I am the descendant of an illegal Mexican immigrant. I think about my grandmother and Arizona, which she crossed to come to California. The what-ifs are numerous. In short, when I see what is happening in Arizona and when I get a letter such as the one from Garrick, I can't help but feel as if a part of me is not wanted in this country. And as long as the people and politicians continue to act as cowards, supporting and enacting laws that reflect their own insecurities, I will more and more feel as if I am not wanted here.
My solace, however, is my vote, which I cast in each election. My father tells me he takes great pride in knowing that his presidential vote cancels out Rush Limbaugh's vote, and I love that idea. I've made Mitch McConnell my huckleberry on the national scene.
Now, I need to find a vote to cancel in California. Should I find someone in news entertainment, the sickly phoenix that rose from the ashes of journalism? Or maybe some political bigwig? The answer is clear: I can take pride from here on knowing I cancel Assemblymember Garrick's vote. Garrick, you are my state-level huckleberry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
