Thursday, February 9, 2012
So It Begins...
Hey Big Bambi, funny podcast. Made me wanna show you my collection. Saved you a spot...
See ya soon.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
New Podcast Featuring My Best Friend, Smo.
Listen to internet radio with BestCoasts on Blog Talk Radio
I just threw up...
I just threw up in my mouth a little bit…
In the past several months, I have paid acute attention to the competition for the Republican Presidential nominee. Much of the rhetoric has centered around the need for reduced government regulation, reduced government spending, and paying off our national debt. Of course, this is the same platform that every presidential nominee, regardless of party, has been trumpeting since the early 1970s. What’s ironic about this message that is being preached right now with vigor and passion is the fact that no president of the past 40 years has reduced regulations, deficits, or debts in the time he has been in office.
As evidence, I offer a quote from a politician: “The full consequences of a default – or even the serious prospect of default – by the U.S. are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar. The current debt level is unsustainable and puts us on a trajectory for financial collapse and ruin”. That was said in 1983 by Ronald Reagan, almost 30 years ago. At the time, the U.S. debt level was a paltry $900 billion. Today, out debt level is approximately $15 trillion, more than 16 times the level of debt when Reagan made his dire forecast. So why don’t presidents and politicians, when elected, reduce debt/deficits/government in the name of financial prosperity? And what does this mean for all of us?
Let’s answer that question by looking at some sobering statistics:
1) Each U.S. citizen owes $49,000 as his part of the national debt.
2) Each U.S. taxpayer owes $136,000 as his part of the national debt.
3) The U.S. government spent $3.6 trillion in 2011, and brought in just $2.3 trillion. For those scoring at home, that means our govt just put $1.3 trillion on our credit card.
4) About 70% of the spending is for Social Security, Medicaid, and Defense. And of course, nobody wants to reduce these at all.
5) $51,000 is the amount of personal debt (mortgages, vehicles, CC, etc…) we carry per citizen.
6) $12,000 is the amount of interest we owe per citizen each year as a result of govt spending.
If these numbers aren’t enough to make you pull your hair out, or throw your spaghetti dinner plate against the wall, then you may need to consult a local physician for pulse irregularity. In other words, $15 trillion of our dollars have been spent without our consent, knowledge, or approval by men and women who do not have the training, knowledge, or ability to manage money. Let’s think about this from an individual’s, or families’, perspective.
Let’s say a family of four has $50,000 in credit card debt. Let’s also say that this family cannot make the interest payments on its credit card debt and still afford rent, groceries, transportation, etc…. Most financial planners will tell this family that there are 3, and only 3, ways to improve its financial situation. First, it can stop spending. Second, it can earn more income. Third, and the preferred method, it can combine the first two. If this family of four stops spending and earns more income, it will eventually position itself for financial success at some point in the future. So does the U.S. government follow this sage financial advice? No, instead it continues to spend without reducing any debt and continues to borrow thinking that the mistakes of the past can be covered up with new, fresh borrowings to be repaid at a later time. And the reason that it does this is because the President is only elected for four years at a time. What does he care about reducing the debt when he won’t be here for very much longer? A man won’t make a 50 year decision if his life span is just 4 years.
So now the climax: what’s in it for you? Why should you care? What does this mean for you, your family, and the ones you care about? First, debt is expensive. The more you borrow, the more expensive it is to borrow. This cripples economic growth and will adversely impact your ability to find gainful employment and find financing for a small business idea that you have. Second, what happens when the U.S. can’t make its credit card payments any more? The same thing that happens to you and me. Your credit becomes no good and you can’t buy anything of value: homes, vehicles, education, etc…. Except the government default is much more sinister. Its money is no longer any good and the money in your bank account cannot buy what it used to. Fun times. Third, the government has to print money to pay its debts. So you may think, well problem solved then. Except inflation is perhaps the most imposing enemy to our money. It increases the cost of everything you purchase from gas to groceries to durable goods. You probably like $3 gas right now. Will you like it at $8/gallon? Bread sure tastes good at $1 a loaf. How good will it taste at $5 a loaf? These are the challenges we face as a generation if we don’t rein in our government.
We should all remember that they work for us, not the other way around. Demand that your local representative stop spending your money. Demand that they pay off your credit card bill. Demand accountability or fire them. You are the boss of the American president, the U.S. Senate, and the U.S. House. We’ve forgotten this principle over the past 50 years and you see the financial result. Let’s not forget any more.
Sabin
In the past several months, I have paid acute attention to the competition for the Republican Presidential nominee. Much of the rhetoric has centered around the need for reduced government regulation, reduced government spending, and paying off our national debt. Of course, this is the same platform that every presidential nominee, regardless of party, has been trumpeting since the early 1970s. What’s ironic about this message that is being preached right now with vigor and passion is the fact that no president of the past 40 years has reduced regulations, deficits, or debts in the time he has been in office.
As evidence, I offer a quote from a politician: “The full consequences of a default – or even the serious prospect of default – by the U.S. are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar. The current debt level is unsustainable and puts us on a trajectory for financial collapse and ruin”. That was said in 1983 by Ronald Reagan, almost 30 years ago. At the time, the U.S. debt level was a paltry $900 billion. Today, out debt level is approximately $15 trillion, more than 16 times the level of debt when Reagan made his dire forecast. So why don’t presidents and politicians, when elected, reduce debt/deficits/government in the name of financial prosperity? And what does this mean for all of us?
Let’s answer that question by looking at some sobering statistics:
1) Each U.S. citizen owes $49,000 as his part of the national debt.
2) Each U.S. taxpayer owes $136,000 as his part of the national debt.
3) The U.S. government spent $3.6 trillion in 2011, and brought in just $2.3 trillion. For those scoring at home, that means our govt just put $1.3 trillion on our credit card.
4) About 70% of the spending is for Social Security, Medicaid, and Defense. And of course, nobody wants to reduce these at all.
5) $51,000 is the amount of personal debt (mortgages, vehicles, CC, etc…) we carry per citizen.
6) $12,000 is the amount of interest we owe per citizen each year as a result of govt spending.
If these numbers aren’t enough to make you pull your hair out, or throw your spaghetti dinner plate against the wall, then you may need to consult a local physician for pulse irregularity. In other words, $15 trillion of our dollars have been spent without our consent, knowledge, or approval by men and women who do not have the training, knowledge, or ability to manage money. Let’s think about this from an individual’s, or families’, perspective.
Let’s say a family of four has $50,000 in credit card debt. Let’s also say that this family cannot make the interest payments on its credit card debt and still afford rent, groceries, transportation, etc…. Most financial planners will tell this family that there are 3, and only 3, ways to improve its financial situation. First, it can stop spending. Second, it can earn more income. Third, and the preferred method, it can combine the first two. If this family of four stops spending and earns more income, it will eventually position itself for financial success at some point in the future. So does the U.S. government follow this sage financial advice? No, instead it continues to spend without reducing any debt and continues to borrow thinking that the mistakes of the past can be covered up with new, fresh borrowings to be repaid at a later time. And the reason that it does this is because the President is only elected for four years at a time. What does he care about reducing the debt when he won’t be here for very much longer? A man won’t make a 50 year decision if his life span is just 4 years.
So now the climax: what’s in it for you? Why should you care? What does this mean for you, your family, and the ones you care about? First, debt is expensive. The more you borrow, the more expensive it is to borrow. This cripples economic growth and will adversely impact your ability to find gainful employment and find financing for a small business idea that you have. Second, what happens when the U.S. can’t make its credit card payments any more? The same thing that happens to you and me. Your credit becomes no good and you can’t buy anything of value: homes, vehicles, education, etc…. Except the government default is much more sinister. Its money is no longer any good and the money in your bank account cannot buy what it used to. Fun times. Third, the government has to print money to pay its debts. So you may think, well problem solved then. Except inflation is perhaps the most imposing enemy to our money. It increases the cost of everything you purchase from gas to groceries to durable goods. You probably like $3 gas right now. Will you like it at $8/gallon? Bread sure tastes good at $1 a loaf. How good will it taste at $5 a loaf? These are the challenges we face as a generation if we don’t rein in our government.
We should all remember that they work for us, not the other way around. Demand that your local representative stop spending your money. Demand that they pay off your credit card bill. Demand accountability or fire them. You are the boss of the American president, the U.S. Senate, and the U.S. House. We’ve forgotten this principle over the past 50 years and you see the financial result. Let’s not forget any more.
Sabin
Saturday, February 4, 2012
PCTI 2, Game 5 Review
This is episode 5 of a 7 part series of PCTI 2 game reviews.
Team Eskildsen lives to fight another day, bounces Team BC 73-64.
Fresh off a disastrous and confidence-sapping Game 4 last-second loss, Team Eskildsen faced an elimination game on Saturday afternoon. From the outset, it appeared that Team BC already had plans to hunt barflys later that night as their energy and effort were lacking early in the first half. Team Eskildsen jumped on the opportunity, sensing weakness and lack of focus from BC's overconfident unit and jumped out to a blitzkrieg 29-12 advantage behind a series of coast-to-coast layups from Ben Wilson and a few triples by Chase Hardin. Down 17 points and on the verge of a blowout loss, Team BC called timeout to rally the troops and make an effort to close out the series. With renewed energy and commitment to the defensive end, Team BC scratched and clawed its way back to a 39-30 halftime deficit.
In the second half, Team BC continued to close the gap as it got the ball to BC for some nice open court opportunities and awkward post-ups. Using a 19-10 run in the middle of the second half helped Team BC close to within 59-56 and fueled their confidence that this might be the moment of championship destiny. But successive 3 balls by Hardin and Wilson slammed the door shut on Team BC's chances and they faded quietly into the late Saturday-setting sun. Team Eskildsen had earned itself a 73-64 victory and the right to compete on Sunday in Game 6. Although Team Eskildsen remained down in the series 3-2, it owned a renewed sense of optimism and confidence that it could come back from the brink and pull off the championship in 7 games.
This game will come to be known in the histories as the BC-BW Shootout. Before I proceed, let me say that in 1987, Dominique Wilkins and Larry Bird put on one of the greatest shootouts in NBA history as each player made improbable shot after improbable shot, refusing to let his team lose and putting all 4 teammates on their respective backs. Ultimately, Dominique and Larry went down to the wire with neither one blinking until the very end when 'Nique cooled off and Bird hit some late, clutch shots, sealing the win for his team. It went down as the greatest Shootout in modern NBA history. The BC-BW Shootout was nothing like that. But it was impressive that each player put up huge numbers for his team, standing in stark contrast to the relatively pedestrian outputs of his teammates. BC slapped up a 24-7 while Wilson matched him with a salty 21-11.
One thing that really stands out from this game is the fact that on Team BC, BC went 11-18 FGAs, while the rest of his team went 13-54. For those of you scoring at home, that's 24%. Even BC's incredibly broad shoulders were not able to overcome his team's deplorable FG%. On the other team, BW went 8-16 from the field with 3 triples, but was able to receive modest support from teammates Hardin (5-10 FGAs with 4 triples), Bruise (5-8 FGAs), and Sabin (3-6 FGAs with 1 triple). The only analysis from this game that matters is the fact that Team BC shot identical 12-36 FGAs each half, for a total of 24-72 FGAs, 33%. Yikes! Team Eskildsen was modestly better, shooting 28-70 FGAs for 40% but adding 11 triples to help its cause. Again, you could argue that Team BC had already planned its evening before Game 5 because it appears to have left its best effort in the locker room. Team Eskildsen did not play great, but simply did enough to win.
Outstanding players:
BC: 11-18 FGAs, 1 triple, 24 points, 7 boards in just 23 minutes of action. The model of efficiency.
BW: 8-16 FGAs, 3 triples, 2-7 FTAs (WTF?), 21 points, 11 boards, 3 assists, 2 blocks, 0 turnovers, and lots of sexy headband.
Hardin: 14 points, 6 boards, 5 assists
Bruise: 10 points, 4 boards
Great Plays:
Ben makes a nice coast-to-coast effort and finishes an and-one on Donley. In a related story, Donley had 4 fouls in this game. All of them were used on Wilson. #foreshadowing
BC makes a nice putback in the air of a missed shot from Hite. Because it is so rarely seen in PCTI, the in-the-air putback seemed so athletic and awesome that it caused the gym to stop. These are the kinds of things that happen when 16 unathletic white guys play basketball.
JT goes coast-to-coast and finishes with a nifty lefty reverse layup. It was noted that this was the first left-hand make of his career.
Sabin grabs an offensive board and immediately finds BW for a layup. Pitto was heard from the sideline saying "I still hate that guy." Pitto was later told that Sabin was his teammate. It did not change the outcome.
Sights and Sounds:
Before the game, BC looks into the camera and says "I'm ready, so f*ucking ready". On a related note, nobody on Team Eskildsen was intimidated.
Sabin and Joe inexplicably engage in a dance-off before the game. Although neither was that great, Sabin was the clear winner as Joe seems to have a rhythm deficiency. At least he tried.
Pitto's mating call seems to be "No numbers!" to his teammates even when there are fast break opportunities. It was later determined that he only makes this call when he does not have the ball.
Hops laments his FG accuracy by stating "After 23 points in Game 2, my FG% is plummeting, and not even slowly." #humblebrag
DK misses a wide open 16 footer by 3 feet to the right and 3 feet short. Not sure what happened here, but he could've been blinded by his sun-bright shoes or his Justin-Bieber haircut.
JT gets called for a charge when he chicken wings Pitto, immediately turns to the ref and says "You've got to be f*cking kidding me!". In a related story, Joe's relationship with referees is inexplicably still poor.
DK and Chase engage in a post-game recap discussing their favorite air balls of the session. DK mentions that he has no leg strength while Chase mentions that he cannot punt the ball to the rim. Ironically, they are both right.
Observations:
Generally speaking, for a group of self-professed fundamental white players who can shoot, defend, and play hard, it certainly seems like there are a lot missed shots, poor defensive plays, and lukewarm physical effort. Our stereotype seems to be based on, well, nothing.
BC may look like Bambi on the ice once in a while, but I'll be damned if that guy doesn't produce. He averaged a double-double in PCTI I and added to his collection of huge PCTI games with this masterpiece. What will he follow up with in III?
Not sure who had the worse look between Danny's hair, Pitto's shoes, or Hops' yellowed wife beater from 1999. In a related story, the best look belonged to Donley and Bruise. UnderArmour and Mike-Tyson tough.
Parting comment:
After the game, BC walks over to Team Eskildsen and says "I really wanted to play tomorrow, so I'm glad you guys won. We get to play tomorrow and I padded my stats as well. Yet again proving my reputation in PCTI of when my team wins, I'm a 4 point, 5 board guy. When we lose, 21 and 10. I'm my mind, it couldn't have worked out better." No comment from his teammates if this style of leadership was effective or not.
Sabin
Team Eskildsen lives to fight another day, bounces Team BC 73-64.
Fresh off a disastrous and confidence-sapping Game 4 last-second loss, Team Eskildsen faced an elimination game on Saturday afternoon. From the outset, it appeared that Team BC already had plans to hunt barflys later that night as their energy and effort were lacking early in the first half. Team Eskildsen jumped on the opportunity, sensing weakness and lack of focus from BC's overconfident unit and jumped out to a blitzkrieg 29-12 advantage behind a series of coast-to-coast layups from Ben Wilson and a few triples by Chase Hardin. Down 17 points and on the verge of a blowout loss, Team BC called timeout to rally the troops and make an effort to close out the series. With renewed energy and commitment to the defensive end, Team BC scratched and clawed its way back to a 39-30 halftime deficit.
In the second half, Team BC continued to close the gap as it got the ball to BC for some nice open court opportunities and awkward post-ups. Using a 19-10 run in the middle of the second half helped Team BC close to within 59-56 and fueled their confidence that this might be the moment of championship destiny. But successive 3 balls by Hardin and Wilson slammed the door shut on Team BC's chances and they faded quietly into the late Saturday-setting sun. Team Eskildsen had earned itself a 73-64 victory and the right to compete on Sunday in Game 6. Although Team Eskildsen remained down in the series 3-2, it owned a renewed sense of optimism and confidence that it could come back from the brink and pull off the championship in 7 games.
This game will come to be known in the histories as the BC-BW Shootout. Before I proceed, let me say that in 1987, Dominique Wilkins and Larry Bird put on one of the greatest shootouts in NBA history as each player made improbable shot after improbable shot, refusing to let his team lose and putting all 4 teammates on their respective backs. Ultimately, Dominique and Larry went down to the wire with neither one blinking until the very end when 'Nique cooled off and Bird hit some late, clutch shots, sealing the win for his team. It went down as the greatest Shootout in modern NBA history. The BC-BW Shootout was nothing like that. But it was impressive that each player put up huge numbers for his team, standing in stark contrast to the relatively pedestrian outputs of his teammates. BC slapped up a 24-7 while Wilson matched him with a salty 21-11.
One thing that really stands out from this game is the fact that on Team BC, BC went 11-18 FGAs, while the rest of his team went 13-54. For those of you scoring at home, that's 24%. Even BC's incredibly broad shoulders were not able to overcome his team's deplorable FG%. On the other team, BW went 8-16 from the field with 3 triples, but was able to receive modest support from teammates Hardin (5-10 FGAs with 4 triples), Bruise (5-8 FGAs), and Sabin (3-6 FGAs with 1 triple). The only analysis from this game that matters is the fact that Team BC shot identical 12-36 FGAs each half, for a total of 24-72 FGAs, 33%. Yikes! Team Eskildsen was modestly better, shooting 28-70 FGAs for 40% but adding 11 triples to help its cause. Again, you could argue that Team BC had already planned its evening before Game 5 because it appears to have left its best effort in the locker room. Team Eskildsen did not play great, but simply did enough to win.
Outstanding players:
BC: 11-18 FGAs, 1 triple, 24 points, 7 boards in just 23 minutes of action. The model of efficiency.
BW: 8-16 FGAs, 3 triples, 2-7 FTAs (WTF?), 21 points, 11 boards, 3 assists, 2 blocks, 0 turnovers, and lots of sexy headband.
Hardin: 14 points, 6 boards, 5 assists
Bruise: 10 points, 4 boards
Great Plays:
Ben makes a nice coast-to-coast effort and finishes an and-one on Donley. In a related story, Donley had 4 fouls in this game. All of them were used on Wilson. #foreshadowing
BC makes a nice putback in the air of a missed shot from Hite. Because it is so rarely seen in PCTI, the in-the-air putback seemed so athletic and awesome that it caused the gym to stop. These are the kinds of things that happen when 16 unathletic white guys play basketball.
JT goes coast-to-coast and finishes with a nifty lefty reverse layup. It was noted that this was the first left-hand make of his career.
Sabin grabs an offensive board and immediately finds BW for a layup. Pitto was heard from the sideline saying "I still hate that guy." Pitto was later told that Sabin was his teammate. It did not change the outcome.
Sights and Sounds:
Before the game, BC looks into the camera and says "I'm ready, so f*ucking ready". On a related note, nobody on Team Eskildsen was intimidated.
Sabin and Joe inexplicably engage in a dance-off before the game. Although neither was that great, Sabin was the clear winner as Joe seems to have a rhythm deficiency. At least he tried.
Pitto's mating call seems to be "No numbers!" to his teammates even when there are fast break opportunities. It was later determined that he only makes this call when he does not have the ball.
Hops laments his FG accuracy by stating "After 23 points in Game 2, my FG% is plummeting, and not even slowly." #humblebrag
DK misses a wide open 16 footer by 3 feet to the right and 3 feet short. Not sure what happened here, but he could've been blinded by his sun-bright shoes or his Justin-Bieber haircut.
JT gets called for a charge when he chicken wings Pitto, immediately turns to the ref and says "You've got to be f*cking kidding me!". In a related story, Joe's relationship with referees is inexplicably still poor.
DK and Chase engage in a post-game recap discussing their favorite air balls of the session. DK mentions that he has no leg strength while Chase mentions that he cannot punt the ball to the rim. Ironically, they are both right.
Observations:
Generally speaking, for a group of self-professed fundamental white players who can shoot, defend, and play hard, it certainly seems like there are a lot missed shots, poor defensive plays, and lukewarm physical effort. Our stereotype seems to be based on, well, nothing.
BC may look like Bambi on the ice once in a while, but I'll be damned if that guy doesn't produce. He averaged a double-double in PCTI I and added to his collection of huge PCTI games with this masterpiece. What will he follow up with in III?
Not sure who had the worse look between Danny's hair, Pitto's shoes, or Hops' yellowed wife beater from 1999. In a related story, the best look belonged to Donley and Bruise. UnderArmour and Mike-Tyson tough.
Parting comment:
After the game, BC walks over to Team Eskildsen and says "I really wanted to play tomorrow, so I'm glad you guys won. We get to play tomorrow and I padded my stats as well. Yet again proving my reputation in PCTI of when my team wins, I'm a 4 point, 5 board guy. When we lose, 21 and 10. I'm my mind, it couldn't have worked out better." No comment from his teammates if this style of leadership was effective or not.
Sabin
Friday, February 3, 2012
Top 10 Things I AM Looking Forward to in PCTI III
Top 10 things I look forward to at PCTI:
10. BC Commentary and interviews
9. Playing basketball (especially Sunday when I'm hungover!)
8. Hair and shoe choices of everyone (especially Prez DK)
7. Spending time w Moose Donley and the Spotlight
6. Abe’s slam piece
5. Alcohol
4. PCTI II Viewing Party / Homoerotic Wine Night
3. Winning the PCTI III
2. Some fail of a move/shot that is bound to happen by me
1. Hanging and drinking w my PCTI brethren
Top 10 Things I'm NOT Looking Forward to in PCTI III
Top 10 things I'm not looking forward to at PCTI:
10. Getting my shot blocked multiple times by Smo
9. A multitude of Josh’s shot attempts
8. Pitto whining at calls and Sabin screaming “AND 1”
7. Sharing a bathroom with 2 other guys
6. Wes
5. Playing hungover Sunday
4. Looking at the overall tab at the end of the weekend
3. Icing my knees after every session
2. Traveling home
1. Joe and Sabin continuing “feud”
Top 10 Things I am looking forward to coming shortly!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)