Hi all, hows it goin? Hope you've had a good week so far. I know I have. My week started feeling scared to death about this radio presentation I need to do Thursday. It's basically on an older system used way back in radio. The thought process being, if I can operate this machine, I can operate anything in radio. Anyways things have started to come around and I am feeling pretty good about it. I got a 2 hour practice session tomorrow, so I feel that will be more than enough time to get it down pat.
Anyways, I know I blogged last time about Michael Vick, but I just want to make a point about the events since Sunday's win over Detroit. In sports, more often than not, who starts and who is the back up is much more often determined by the players salary than his talent unfortunately. For those who do not know, Kevin Kolb, the Eagles new QB (at the time) got a large contract extension after the trade of Donovan McNabb. After the Eagles win on Sunday, with Micheal Vick in control (KK had a concussion) the Eagles passing attack had looked great, and more importantly, Vick had looked better than at any point in his career, which is saying something given some of his years in Atlanta. However Andy Reid, the Eagles coach said that KK would be starting the next game because he was healthy again. A day later, after some re-consideration (and perhaps some suggestion by the team owner - just a guess on my part) Reid did a 180 and all of a sudden proclaimed Vick as the starter going forward because he had performed beyond expectations. Now whether it was ownership intervention, or Reid legitimately changed his mind, I always give props when a team makes a choice like this. It doesn't particularly look the greatest when your starter, is earning aound 3.5 million, when your new back-up, who has just signed a new contract is earning around 7 million, but kudos to the Eagles for making the right choice, because at the end of the day, winning is the only thing that matters of course.
File this one under why US laws are a farce....I was reading an article online about how a US man's execution was delayed after he attempted suicide. His lawyer argues the suicide attempt proves his client is incompetent and executing him would violate the US Constitution on cruel and unusual punishment....
....excuse me....cruel and unusual punishment. Now I know this is a debatable subject for some, and so be it, be isn't the act of killing someone, especially in the form of retribution cruel and unusual punishment? further more, putting myself in the shoes of the US law makers - why would I care if someone on death row killed themselves? An execution costs more tax payers money than a life sentence does, so why would I care if an inmate "did the job himself" (pardon the language, just the thought process I'd assume from their point of view" It also just seems kind of stupid to me - does the US law makers need to stroke their own ego to the point where they need to carry out the killing themselves? Case in point, in March, an Ohio man OD'ed on anti-depressants, only a couple of hours before his execution. They allowed him to fully recover in a hospital, only to execute him a week after the suicide attempt. Perhaps I am missing some point in all this, but it looks to me as another reason of why the US is looked down upon as much as it is for various reasons.
Take care, please leave some feedback, and if you can't because it wants you to create a user and all that fun stuff - send me a message to my Facebook inbox. Cheers.
No comments:
Post a Comment