Don't ya hate it when...

This is a subject that I have strong feelings about. I really dislike it when people sit next to me at an uncrowded bar and/or restaurant. Like some people I enjoy sitting at the bar, or doing the "lean" as taught to me by Leigh Hawkins. When an establishment is crowded, it's every person for themselves in terms of getting a spot and that's understandable. Even if the bar isn't that crowded but there's enough people spread out that if someone wants a seat at the bar they're going to have to sit next to someone, I've been in that situation but when the establishment isn't crowded, that's a different story.

Take this evening for example. So I'm staying in Winston-Salem and I'm sitting at the sushi bar of an Asian Bistro. As I walk in, around 7:15ish, there's maybe 10 people in the place and NO ONE at the sushi bar. At this particular sushi bar there are 8 seats, or so, at the bar and I take the 3rd seat from the right, maybe the 4th but it was close to the middle but not the middle of the sushi bar. I'm enjoying my sashimi/sushi dinner combo when 2 gentlemen come in and plop right down next to me, mind you I was the only one sitting at the sushi bar. In fact one of the guys made the other sit next me as he changed seats at the last minute (I did shower about 45 minutes to my arrival but it was raining when I walked over so maybe I smelled a bit musty.) Now there were at least 2-3 seats to the left of the dude who was originally going to sit next to me but made his friend do it instead.

My 1st thought was, "just gonna sit down right next to me with no one else at the bar? Really?" Now, I didn't let this spoil my dinner and Sapporos. But it got me thinking about some of the other times that this sort of thing happened. Here are the 2 most popular incidents in my life:

* July/August 2007: I was working the Eerie County Fair in Hamburg, NY. We were there for 10 days I think, it might be less but it seemed like forever, and I had actually befriended a a temporary staffer, I rarely have talked to temp staff over the last 7 years much less befriend any of them. So on the last night after we tear down, the staffer and I decide to have a drink at a bar close the the fairgrounds. We're at this small establishment and there are 5 people in the bar; the bartender, another couple, my friend & myself. The other couple seemed to know the bartender and they appeared to have been there awhile. I don't remember the guy's name, he kept to himself, but the woman's name was Patty. Patty was from Canada and had probably been drinking for quite some time. IN addition to engaging us in conversation, Patty felt the need to give us her opinions and regale us with stories. To be honest, I wasn't putting out my normal "please leave me alone & don't talk to me" vibe as I was with someone and wanted to be friendly, as well as to show my new friend that I wasn't a total jerk (which I pretty much am so yeah I was lying to the kid.) But Patty went above and beyond the normal level for polite conversation. She even got in our faces about her marriage or something like that. As I recall the guy she was with may have even apologized for her (as did Patty, several times.) All I was looking for was an enjoyable evening, instead I had to deal with drunk Patty from Canada (I don't hold Canada responsible for Patty's actions. It's one of those things.)

* I cant' remember when this took place exactly but I'm pretty sure it was summertime somewhere between 2004-2006 and the location was the Little Sisters Truck Wash in Bakersfield, CA, my CDL brethren know the spot well. I was getting my truck & trailer washed and decided to wait it out on a bench. Eventually I'm joined by 2 other drivers waiting for their trucks. Then without warning one of the drivers starts talking about his life. He just jumps right in with no small talk leading up to it or nothing, BAM! He just proceeds to tell his life story. After hearing about the death of this guy's relatives, the other driver (leaving me with the talker) gets up and leaves. Without missing a beat, this guy focuses on me and continues (to this day I don't remember if the driver who left even got his truck. I think he just left the truck wash. It was like Airplane when everyone who sat next to Robert Hays committed suicide after hearing his story.) This guy talked about how his family had died off and how he's inherited a lot of land because of it. He even mentioned that he got a settlement from a farming accident that left him near dead and that his wife had left him for whatever reason. I was all alone with this guy. The guys at the truck wash couldn't finish fast enough. I may have made the mistake of encouraging the guy as I nodded and grunted as if I was really interested. It seemed like 6 weeks but I managed to make my escape when the truck was finished.

Suffice to say I believe that the truck stop incident made me more introverted. I told the story to a friend of mine and he said that the poor guy was probably "lonely." I spend a lot of time alone but I pray to the gods on Olympus that I never tell my life story to a total stranger who just happen to sit next to me.

Is it worse to have someone sit next to you, in an uncrowded establishment, and start talking to you or to have people involve you in their lives because they're talking loudly or they're on the phone (the on the phone while at dinner with people is a subject for another time...excuse yourself from the table please!). Tough call. There's always a possibility that the stranger next to you may be interesting or even find you interesting but that's rare. That has happened to me before but it was at a crowded bar so it doesn't really apply (I think we found each other reasonably interesting...maybe).

Maybe it's because I am an introverted jerk that this kind of thing bothers me. After all these guys didn't include me in their conversation, thankfully because they seemed real boring (that's saying something because I'm a card carrying dullard). I think only one of them had anything to eat, he got a few sushi rolls and a Diet Coke while his pal had a few beers.

Anyway, I'm sure a lot of people out there have had a similar memory about something along these lines as it's not uncommon. That's how it is I guess, I mean how much fun would it be if we got everything we wanted?

Thanks for your time.

Red vs. Phil

Now that Phil Jackson has coached his last basketball game, allegedly. The inevitable debate has reared it's head again...who's the better coach, Phil Jackson or Red Auerbach? But before I get into it, I would like to make a few comments about the Game 4 of the Lakers/Mavs series.

I sat at the Moosehead Bar & Grill in Charlotte, NC in slack-jawed disbelief as the Mavs cremated the Lakers. Jason Terry hit shot after shot with nary a Laker defender in his face. Apparently the Laker defensive game plan consisted of daring the Mavs to hoist up 3-pointers. Which they did & did very well. Dallas was 44-73 from the field and 20-32 (that's 63%!) from beyond the arc. How about Odom & Bynum at the end of the game? The cross body block that Odom layed on Dirk was a flagrant foul and you can debate about whether he should've been tossed. In my opinion, Odom was frustrated about the game, didn't feel like playing anymore and decided to body check Dirk. Odom, from what I've heard, is a likable guy who had had enough and acted outed of frustration but NO ONE got hurt. Bynum had contributed very little,  2-7 from the field 10 points & 6 rebounds, decided that he was done for the day (did he ever get started?). So he decides to hammer, what Dr. Flute calls "the Rudy of the NBA," Jose Barea.

After Bynum put Barea on the deck he turned around and walked toward the tunnel without even waiting for the refs to toss him. He then takes off his shirt in disgust as Ron Artest escorts him off the floor. What does that tell you about a player who:

a) decides he no longer wants to play in a blowout loss so he flagrant fouls the littlest guy on the court.
b)Pulls a "Rodman" by ripping off his shirt in disgust as if he did nothing wrong or was unjustly being singled out.
c) needed Ron Artest to be the "level-headed guy" to get him off the court without further incident. Ron Artest?! Really?

I never really thought Bynum was that good, http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bynuman01.html. He's played a full season once and only 1 more time did he play more than 60 games. I was going to call him the Benoit Benjamin of his generation but after going over Benoit's stats, http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/benjabe01.html, that's a disservice to Benoit!
My last comment about this subject is in Red's last game, the Celtics won the NBA title. In Phil's last game, the Lakers were blown out and the players layed down and died. I think there was a moment when the Lakers were down 30 that you could see Phil texting Jean Buss about starting their vacation early. Ok that's a lame attempt to try to be witty.  Back to the argument of Red v. Phil.

Red Auerbach was the coach and GM of the Boston Celtics from 1950-1966. Under Auerbach the Celtics won the NBA title in 1957 and 8 more from 1959-1966. Here's the list of Hall of Fame players that Red coached during his title run:

• Bob Cousy
• Bill Russell
• Frank Ramsey
• Bill Sharman
• Tommy Heinshon
• Sam Jones
• John Havlicek

Here is the list of Hall of Famers that Phil coached with his title runs in Chicago and LA (be advised Shaq & Kobe aren't in the HOF yet):

• Michael Jordan
• Scottie Pippen
• Shaquille O'Neal
• Kobe Bryant

 Red coached the Celtics from 1951-1966. In the Pre-Russell era (51-56), Red went to playoffs every year (8 team league) and won 57% of his games (241-181). During the Russell years (57-66), Red went to the finals 10 times, won 9 of them and won 72% of the regular season games (554-216).

Phil coached the Bulls from 1990-1998. He took over a team that lost the Eastern Conference Finals to the eventual champion Detroit Pistons. In his 1st season they once again got beat by the Pistons in the ECF. After winning 3 champions with Jordan (91-93), Jordan left and Phil still won 62% of regular season games while Jordan was playing baseball (or on a secret suspension from Stern whichever you believe) and made into the semi finals of the EC both years as well. Then of course Jordan returns then he wins 3 more.

Instead of dragging this out, I am going to end this argument once and for all. You CAN NOT compare the 2 eras. Red coached in a league with 8 to 9 teams with 6 teams going to the playoffs. Phil coached in a league where 16 teams went to the playoffs. The NBA didn't go too much past the Mississippi River until the Lakers moved out to LA for the 1960-61 season. The game was very different, the NIT was still the dominant post season tournament in college hoops, travel was done by train for the most part, TV was non-existent and so on.  The comparison that should be made is Phil Jackson v. Pat Riley. Both coached in the post-merger era of the NBA and both coached teams loaded with talent (Riley took over a Laker team that had won the title in 1980 then got ousted in the 1st round by a 41-41 Houston team. That along with the fact that Paul Westhead wasn't liked by Magic Johnson opened the door for Riley).

So throw out the Red v. Phil argument! It has no steam. I don't believe you can compare era in most major sports. Things were just different. In Red's time, pro atheltes had a 2nd job in the off season, athletes never moved unless traded, no European players, a quota on Black players and so on. It was even a different country back then! Red was a master coach, talent evaluator and GM. He was better than the other guys and even into is twilight years he was still sharp (he drafted Larry Bird as junior eligible in 1978 so he had his rights until Larry finished at Indiana State. The NBA closed that loophole soon after). So Red is far and away the best coach of the pre-merger era.

Phil versus Pat is the better debate. Riley went to the NBA finals 7 times from 1982-1989 and came away with 4 NBA titles. From 1990-1998, Phil went to the finals 6 times and came away with 6 titles. Both coached were master motiviators and great at manipulating egos (Red probably didn't have that problem of dealing with cry baby millionaires like Scottie Pippen in the 1994 ECSF against the Knicks).

Phil is the winner in the debate with Riley. It would probably be closer if Starks hadn't gone 2-18 from the field in game 7 or if the Knicks didnt allow Reggie Miller to score 8 points in 3 seconds in game 7 of the ECSF in 1995, which may have enabled Riley to get a title with the Knicks. But Riley couldn't get past Jordan and even with Jordan out of the league he couldn't win a title despite having a very talented Knicks team.

Riley's won 64% of his 1904 regular season games whereas Phil won 70% of his 1640 regualr season games.  Where Riley loses this debate is in Miami. He left the Knicks (unceremoniously) after the 1995 season to take the Miami Heat job and if my memory serves me correct, he was the GM in Miami as well. In 8 full seasons as the Heat coach (1996-2003), Riley won the Atlantic division 4 times in a row and only got to the ECF 1 time (1997) and included 2 1st round exits. He still couldn't get by Jordan. His last 2 seasons he only managed 61 wins (37% winning percentage). Even after replacing Stan Van Gundy in 2005-06 season he eventually won the title against the Mavs. He should have gone back up to the front office immediately! The next season the Heat were swept in the 1st round and in his last full season as head coach the Heat went 15-67.

Phil's work with Jordan is set in stone. After his 3rd Three-peat (Riley had that phrase trademarked despite never accomplishing it), with the Kobe v. Shaq feud in full gear, he still managed to get the Lakers to the finals in 2004 before losing to a much less talented Pistons team. By that time the Kobe v. Shaq battle took center stage and all of Phil's Zen mastery wasn't going to help. Phil knew when to leave (Riley's judgment there is questionable). He wasn't going to stick around after the Bulls broke up the dynasty in 1998 and he cut his losses with the Lakers after the 2004 season. He only came back after the Lakers made changes and they were still a few players away from the run they started in 2008 (when they added Pau Gasol in the 2007-08 season). You can say that Phil had the best player in 2006 and 2007 (Kobe) but with a limited supporting cast he managed 42 and 45 wins respectively.

Phil is the clear cut winner. Sure he never had to build a team like Red or Riley did but that's not his fault. I don't know how great the "triangle" offense is and Tex Winter came up with anyway but he knew players and how to get them to perform. It helped a lot with the Shaq & Kobe Lakers that he already had 6 rings. He got players to buy into his Zen philosophy and quite frankly he won championships and that's what it's about. Again, I don't believe you can compare eras. So in my mind Red & Phil stand alone as the coaching pinnacles of their respective eras.

Most of this stuff was covered by Bill Simmons in his book about the NBA. Some of you out there may not have read it and even less will read this but I got my opinion on record. Thanks for your time.

A thought on the NFL

So is anyone sick of the NFL labor issues? There was a time where it seemed to be heading to the back burner but watch out...it's back! A judge lifts the lockout and orders the teams to open their doors to players (after some teams kept the doors locked & the owners asked for "clarification"). Then 3 judges (that was the number in that appellate court ruling) decide that its ok to put the lockout back in effect.

Although Mr. Goodell was hired by the owners (I hesitate to use the term lackey), I must agree with him when he said that the litigation route was a bad idea (I forget his actual comment). But he's correct. Litigation, especially civil litigation, is a slow and cumbersome process. The only one's who benefit from civil litigation are...the lawyers! I firmly believe that the players had no intention of settling the issue without going to court. They're at a point where they can wait it out and hope that they get the best deal for them. The problem is with litigation is that it's not an exact science. As good as a case the NFLPA think they have, that doesn't guarantee them a favorable verdict/settlement. Go ask the USFL owners when they "won" their anti-trust suit against the NFL and received treble damages of $1. That's right a buck. To be fair treble damages brings the award to $3 which in 1986 could actually buy a few things like a gallon of milk with enough change for a few pieces of Bazooka Joe bubble gum or a newspaper.

Not that I'm pro-owner. These guys are billionaires who want the players to take less money so they can make more. Their main issue is that they're not making enough money. Here's a link to an interesting take on an being a current NFL owner from ESPN writer Bill Simmons, http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/110304. It's a interesting article worth checking out.

Take Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson for example. His name gets lumped in as the hard line owner (true or not who knows) who is trying the keep the owners unified to stick it to the players. As usual my facts may not be 100% accurate as I pick up a lot of information sitting on bar stools listening to other people's conversations along with snippets from the media. From what I gather, Mr Richardson owns the Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte. It's seating capacity is approximately 74,000. Of those 74,000 seats all but 10,000 of them have been sold, via PSLs which Richardson allegedly invented (Simmon's column makes a mention of the PSLs & how it's just free money to an owner). Mr. Richardson can wait out a prolonged work stoppage because he's already got the fans money. Other owners may not be so lucky. Jerry Jones just sank a BILLION of his own money in his new stadium so needs to have it filled, which he's vowed to do regardless of  any work stoppage.

I also can't full ally myself with the players either. I understand their situation, limited playing career so they have to maximize their earnings, the whole thing with post career brain damage, don't trust the owners (which they can't), they are cast aside like a used paper towel when they usefulness has been reached & they're treated as commodities by the owners. Frankly the last 2 items I listed go for just about everyone with a job. These days especially, workers ARE commodities for business owners & workers in most fields of employment ARE tossed to the scrap heap when their no longer deemed useful. Think Michael Douglass in the film Falling Down. So players aren't that much different in their job as the rest of us. Plus it's difficult for me to connect with a guy, let's say...Albert Haynesworth, who collects a $21 million dollar check then complains about the new defensive system installed by the new head coach and decides to pout around training camp overweight.

Now I enjoy the NFL. I enjoy watching NFL games, I recently found I enjoy fantasy football & I think the Monday following Super Bowl Sunday should be a national holiday. I heard this statement (which I'm going to have to paraphrase) while listening to the radio during a drive, I think it was on the Chris "mad Dog" Russo show. While talking about the NFL labor issues both the owners & the NFLPA were cowtowing to the fans. I believe it was either "Mad Dog" or his guest, maybe Peter King but I can't remember, stated that the owners & players don't care that much about the fans as a whole. The degree to which the owners "care" about the fans is that care that they purchase the PSLs. The players "care" that the fans don't see them as "money grabbing carpetbaggers (I think that last quote might be spot on)." I'm well aware that teams & players alike do a lot for charitable causes and I don't discount that. That's great and keep up the good work.

Both sides seem hell bent on killing or crippling the "golden goose." The NFL is a $9 BILLION industry that is not a worldwide phenomenon. In my opinion, there's a ceiling that the industry is going to hit. The sport isn't very popular outside North America so how far can they reach? The NFL schedules a regular season game in London that the participating teams hate. Are the British clamoring for more American football? I think not. There was a football league in Europe that floundered for awhile prior to dying off. Is Frankfurt looking for another franchise?

As usual it's something that's been on my mind and I will watch football when it eventually returns. The owners feel that if the players start losing paychecks then the NFLPA will fold faster than Superman on laundry day. The NFLPA is looking for the courts to force a settlement. We'll see what happens.

Current events - Death of Osama Bin Laden

So it has been more than a month since my last entry. It would appear that with all that's been going on NHL playoffs, NFL labor strife, the near government shutdown, the ridiculousity of Donald Trump & the whole re-rise of the Birther fringe, there wasn't much on my mind. Well since it appears that I've been pseudo-locked out of my job, I've got some free time. Of course I haven't been terribly busy either but whatever.

So after nearly 10 years, the US military finally bagged Bin Laden. Was he hiding in a cave or incognito? Not really. He was in a compound, allegedly built at least 5 years ago, in Abbottabad, not too far from the capital of Pakistan, Islamabad. It doesn't appear that Bin Laden was living in a lap of luxury but he wasn't living off the land either. Speculation is that he's been there for at least 3 years & maybe even longer than that. There's always been the theory that Bin Laden was hiding out somewhere in the Afghan frontier of in the border region of Afghanistan & Pakistan. For years Pakistan officials "knew" he wasn't taking refuge in Pakistan. They "knew" it! It's almost like the scene from The Fugitive when they find the set of leg irons and the guard is asked if he wants to revise his statement. Tommy Lee Jones clarifies it by telling him, "do you wanna change your bullsh*t story."

Suffice to say it looks bad for Pakistan. For years they've been operating under the guise of being our ally in the war on terror. Then to find THE most wanted terrorist in the world living in comfort a mere 40 miles from the capital probably doesn't sit well with US officials. How much has Pakistan really been helping in the war on terror? Were only helping when it suited them. It looks like a Whitey Bulger deal, where they helped where it suited their needs. For those not familiar with who Whitey Bulger is, he was a reputed South Boston mobster who was an FBI informant. Only he really didn't inform on anyone and he ran amok but suspiciously never got in any trouble. That's because he was a protected FBI informant and the FBI did very little, or nothing, to keep him under control. You may remember it from the 2006 film The Departed in which Jack Nicholson's character is based on Bulger.



To be fair, Pakistan is not in an easy position. Before the war, the government wasn't that stable and there were a lot of problems. It seems like they were trying to keep everyone happy by periodically looking good for the US but not doing so much that it would enrage the populace that was sympathetic to Bin Laden's cause. It doesn't sit well with me but then again I'm a regular guy whom the military wouldn't take, if I were to join, and who's knowledge comes from CNN. I figure the guys who are knowledgeable about this stuff & who's job it is to handle it will indeed handle it.

On a side note, I would have liked to have seen a bit of medieval vengeance bestowed upon Bin Laden. Instead of burying him at sea, they should've cut his body into quarters, send it to the 4 corners of the country (Miami, San Diego, Seattle & Portland, ME), his torso to NYC and his head to be placed on pike in front of the White House. In the day, those actions would serve as a warning, "this is what happens to people who mess with us." Us being whatever medieval ruler or country. Think William Wallace after his execution in Braveheart.  It's a bit gruesome & outdated but I thought it interesting to bring up.

On the drive from Charlotte, NC to Columbia, SC I was listening to Chris "Mad Dog" Russo on satellite radio. He spent the 1st few hours of his show discussing the Bin Laden death with guests like Tom Brokaw and taking calls. Chris brought up a point that President Obama gets the credit for taking down Bin Laden & that the his detractors should keep quiet, especially about the nonsense of his birth certificate. "Mad Dog" was correct, Bin Laden was taken down on Obama's watch & he gave the go ahead to execute the operation. The operation went down really well. No US deaths, no collateral damage & they took down the guy that everyone intelligence, military & police agency have been looking for since 2001. Obama gets the credit and he should milk it for all its worth politically.

In April 1980, President Carter gave the go ahead for a mission to rescue the American hostages in Iran, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis. Suffice to say, everything that could've gone wrong did. There was a freak sandstorm, 2 helicopters collided, 9 people including 8 US servicemen were killed. The mission, Operation Eagle Claw, was a  hideous failure. President Carter took a lot of heat, justifiably or not. No one cares that he had the stones to order an operation just that it failed. That event probably led to him being soundly defeated by Reagan in the 1980 presidential election. The 52 American hostages were subsequently released on Reagan's inauguration in January 1981.

That's the way it works these days. President George F.W. Bush was the president of record when the economy went into the take after the first Gulf War. He took the blame for that. President Clinton took the credit for the economic recovery. I don't know how much Clinton actually did to help the economy but it happened under his watch. For Clinton's run as President, the economy was great & regular people like myself were making good money. Although I was in my early to mid 20s & subsequently not that fiscally intelligent or responsible. When I was speaking with a friend over the weekend he brought up a good point about Bill Clinton, "if he could've, Clinton would've been re-elected." I agreed wholeheartedly. Point being that the POTUS takes the good with the bad regardless of how responsible they are.

Back to "Mad Dog's" show for a second. There was one caller who disagreed about Obama getting the credit. He then blamed the democrats for cutting the military budget & suggesting that Bin Laden & 9/11 were a direct result of the Clinton presidency. I'm not sure where this guy got his history lesson, it may have been 2 different callers but if so I'm combing them into one since they had the same rhetoric going on, but that's not completely true. The bin Laden family & the Bush family, the one that gave the American people 2 presidents, have been business acquaintances for years. That's FACT. Now I could be wrong about this, I "check my facts" through Wikipedia, but I was under the impression that Osama Bin Laden became anti-US after the 1st Gulf War when US forces stayed in Saudi Arabia. According to Wikipedia, "The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait under Saddam Hussein on August 2, 1990 put the Saudi kingdom and the House of Saud at risk, with Iraqi forces on the Saudi border and Saddam's appeal to pan-Arabism potentially inciting internal dissent. bin Laden met with King Fahd, and Saudi Defense Minister Sultan, telling them not to depend on non-Muslim assistance from the United States and others, offering to help defend Saudi Arabia with his mujahideen. Bin Laden's offer was rebuffed, and after the Saudi monarchy invited the deployment of U.S. troops in Saudi territory,^[68] Osama publicly denounced Saudi Arabia's dependence on the U.S. military. Osama believed the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two mosques" (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil. Bin Laden's criticism of the Saudi monarchy led that government to attempt to silence him."

Bin Laden also fought for the Mujahideen, Afghan freedom fighters, in the war against the Soviet Union from 1979-1989. The Mujahideen as we know was armed & funded by the US. The US has been involved in the Middle East, mainly Iran & Iraq, since 1953. So what I'm trying to say is that no US administration has clean clean hands in this area of the world. We all know whose side we funded in the Iran v Iraq war in the 80s & looked how that turned out 2 Gulf Wars later.

On a closing note, I don't claim to be expert in any particular topic, except maybe the 1st Ghostbusters film. I'm no crazy right winger or as Martin Downey, Jr used to say "a pablum puking liberal." These are just my opinions. Thanks for your time.

Post Script: Nice work to Seal Team 6 for the job they did. Quick, precise & no collateral damage (which the politicians love). Servicemen like the this are consummate professionals. Thanks to all the servicemen & women for the work they've done over the last 10 years. Here's something else that just popped up that I brought up earlier, http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theenvoy/20110502/ts_yblog_theenvoy/frenemies-u-s-ally-pakistan-in-hot-seat-after-bin-laden-found-in-pakistani-army-town.